FP 2011-27; Env-A 1200 (currently Env-A 1204) 04-22-11 Page 1 

Summary of Comments Received on Initial Proposal (other than in support of rule as proposed), with DES Responses 

~om~reriter _ . _ SectionfRara~ra~h;:Ca'~Wiettt Re sp onse - 

American ,Coatings Association 

- - ---- 

[specific § or I not identified] 

_ _ _ _ 

After consulting with EPA, DES has added a new (ACA) Expressed concerns re: the ability of manufacturers of paragraph (d) to Env-A 1221 .08 (being renumbered as 

coatings, inks, and adhesives to meet the proposed 1221.07) to provide compliance options for the 

industrial cleaning solvent rules; submitted proposed manufacturers . 

language providing another option for such manufacturers . 

Structal Bridges/Canam Steel [specific § or I not identified] DES agrees with Structal Bridges/Canam Steel Corporation Wanted to confirm that adoption of the proposed rules Corporation re: the VOC limits that apply to the 

would not change the VOC limits currently applicable to company's Claremont facility. 

the company's Claremont facility (per discussion at 

meeting with DES on September 30, 2010). 

Printing Industries of New a. Env-A 1215.07: For consistency with the CTG for a. DES agrees and made the change. 

England (PINE) flexible packaging printing, the standard should apply to 

"the owner or operator of an individual flexible-packaging 

printing egeFafies-press with a TPE of 25 tons or more . . ." 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ -- - b. Env-A 1216.01(a)(2) : The applicability threshold for a 

- -- --------------------------------------------- 

b. DES agrees, but notes that existing rule Env-A 1216.03 

non-heatset printing operation should be based on the total prohibits the use of fountain solutions that contain alcohol 

volume of cleaning solution, alcohol, and fountain in a non-heatset press. The rule has been revised to base 

solution used or purchased, rather than the total volume of the applicability threshold on cleaning solution, fountain 

cleaning solution, alcohol fountain solution, alcohol solution additives, and alcohol substitutes. 

substitutes, coatings and ink. The term "alcohol fountain 

solution" does not exist, and coatings and ink should not 

be included because they are a very small percentage. of 

-the -emissions from-these types- of printing. 

------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ -- 

c. Env-A 1216.01(a)(3) : The applicability threshold for a 

- ------------------------------ 

c. DES agrees, since "fountain solution" is a combination 

heatset printing operation should be based on "alcohol and of water and fountain solution additives . The rule has 

fountain solution additives" since those are the only been revised to base the applicability threshold on 

sources of-VOCs -in the-fountain- solution. 

- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 

cleaning solution,-alcohol,-and f-fountain-solution-additives. 

---------------------------------------------------- - 

d. Env-A 1216.04: The recordkeeping provision for 

- ----------- 

d. DES agrees that the recordkeeping requirement should 

offset lithographic and letterpress printing in this section apply to all sources, and so has added the requirement to 

should be moved to Env-A 1205.08 so as to apply to all Env-A 1201 .04. 

VOC RACT sources . 

------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- 

e. Env-A 607.01(x)(2) requires any VOC RACT source to 

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 

e. DES currently is drafting amendments to Env-A 600 to 

get a permit, so lowering the applicability threshold for 9 provide additional permitting options for VOC RACT 

source categories to 3 tons per year could overwhelm the sources . The adoption process for those rules is expected 

ARD permitting program. to start later this spring . 
FI' /-i)11-27 ; Env-A 1200 (currently Env-A 1204) 

Summary of Comments Received on Initial Proposal (other than in support of rule as proposed), with DES Responses 

mmenter , 

EPA Region 1 

'aragraph, Comment 

04-22-11 ~age 2 

a. Env-A 1207.03: Need to ensure that an existing paper/ 

fabric/film/foil coater would continue to meet existing 

requirements between when the proposal is adopted and 

-when the new-limits- take . -----------------------------effect-in-2016 ------------------------------------- 

b. Env-A 1209, Env-A 1212: The proposed limits for 

metal furniture coaters and miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts coaters are consistent with their respective 

CTGs, but in a few cases the limits are less stringent than 

the existing limits in Env-A 1204. In accordance with 

' § 110(1) of the Clean Air Act (re: anti-backsliding), DES 

will need to justify adopting the less stringent limits when 

the rule is submitted for EPA approval as an amendment 

-to the State-ImplementationPlan .------------------------

------------------------------- 

-(SIP) 

- 

c. Env-A 1209 Tables: A footnote should be added to 

each table to note that where more than one limit applies 

-to _a specific coating_ the least stringent linmit shall-apply_----

d. Env-A 1209.02(c), 1212.01(c), and 1216.01(b) : Should 

revise language as follows, ". . . that first becomes subject 

to this part on or after the effective date of this chapter." 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Table 1212-2 : The limits for Pretreatment Coatings 

(Baked) for miscellaneous metal parts are inconsistent 

. DES agrees and added the language suggested by EPA. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

b. DES has read the March 17, 2011 EPA memorandum 

on this subject and will address it when the SIP submittal 

is made. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

c. DES agrees, and has incorporated the suggested 

language in accordance with N.H. rule drafting 

requirements ------------------------ - - ----- - -- - ---- -------------- -

d. DES disagrees with this comment. Sources that first 

become subject to Env-A 1200 after the effective date of 

the chapter, whether because they are new or are modified, 

must meet the limits upon startup. (See Env-A 1201 .03(b)) 

The 5-year grace period is only for those sources wich 

exist on the date the rule is adopted this year who are not 

currently subject to VOC RACT requirements . Lowering 

of the applicability thresholds should sweep a number of 

sources into VOC RACT, and it would be unfair to them 

to make them subject immediately. By the same token, we 

have tried to phase in more stringent standards to facilities 

that are already subject to VOC RACT. DES has revised 

Env-A 1201 .03(b) to make this clearer. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

e. The inconsistency was not intended; the limits have 

been changed to match the CTG. 

with- the CTG------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- 

£ Table 1212-7: For pleasure craft coaters, the limits for 

Extreme High Gloss Topcoat, Other Substrate Antifoulant 

Coating, and Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coating are less 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

f. DES agrees that the specified limits are less stringent 

than those in the CTG. DES met with American Coatings 

Association representatives last summer after the 

stakeholders meeting and received information concerning 

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
FP 2011-27; Env-A 1200 (currently Env-A 1204) 04-22-11 Page 3 Summary of Comments Received on Initial Proposal (other than in support of rule as proposed), with DES Responses 

Coniitrenter. " '' . - . . . ..SecfioiuJPara __ _,gr~Ph; CQmmenf : . esponse 

these 3 coatings . The representatives stated that EPA did 

not seek input from the ACA when it created VOC coating 

limits for pleasure craft (a subcategory of the 

miscellaneous metal parts category) . After a presentation 

about the inadequacy of the 3 coatings that meet the CTG 

limits, we agreed to adjust the limits for those coatings. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Thus, we intend to keep the limits as proposed. 

- -- - - - --- - - - - - --- --------------------------------------------------- 

g. Env-A 1214.02(c) : The word "coating" should be used g. DES agrees that "solids" is incorrect, but changed 

instead of "solids" . "solids" to "material" (rather than "coating") to be 

--------- 

---------------------------------------------------------- -- 

consistent with the rest of the sentence and the CTG. 

h. Env-A 1221 .07: The referenced section, Env-A 

- 

- - --------------- h. DES agrees that the citation was a misprint and has 

-1219.08,-does-not exist.------------------------------------------ 

- - - - - - 

corrected it in the final proposal_ 

i. The rules do not address 2 other CTGs, for which DES 

------------------ 

------------- i. New Hampshire will be submitting negative 

will need to either adopt rules or submit negative declarations for the 2 unaddressed CTGs when it submits 

declarations . the chapter to EPA for SIP approval. 

Office of Legislative Services, a. Env-A 1203.10: The document cited appears to require a. This rule defines "high-performance architectural Administrative Rules Office an incorporation by reference statement (IBRS). coating" as a coating that meets the specified AAMA 

standard . If a coating does not meet the specified 

standard, then it is not what is being defined . The rules do 

not establish requirements that DES will be "enforcing" 

---------------------------------------------------------------- 

------ and

-

so

-

no IBRS is

-

required _--------_ 

-- b. Env-A 1203.31: The document cited appears to require - ------------------------ 

b. This rule defines "medium curing cutback asphalt" as 

an IBRS. material that meets the specified ASTM standard . If a 

material does not meet the specified standard, then it is not 

what is being defined. The rules do not establish 

requirements that DES will be "enforcing" and so no 

-------- 

' 

------------------------------------------------------------ 

-- IBRS is required_ 

------------------------------ 

c. Env-A 1204.53: The document cited appears to require ------------------ 

c. This rule defines "true vapor pressure" as the vapor 

an MRS. pressure resulting from a specific calculation . Vapor 

pressures measured by other calculations are, by 

defmition, not the "true" vapor pressure . The rule does 

not require "compliance" with a specific vapor pressure 

and DES will not be "enforcing" any vapor pressures. No 

IBRS is required . 
FP 2011-27 ; Env-A 1200 (currently Env-A 1204) 04-22-11 Page 4 

Summary of Comments Received on Initial Proposal (other than in support of rule as proposed), with DES Responses 

.,. . . . . _ a=. 

Com~aenter ~, 

. _._, ;. .;.Y <;.;  ~ .. : ., . . . ;;_, .:< . . ~ .. .-.~- -: .. . _. _ 

Section(Para graph; Comment . -- , ., ` . _ - 

Re ~?onse ~. .. . . . . 

d. Env-A 1205 .02(b) is unclear; suggest subdividing it into d. DES agrees that the paragraph could be clearer and has 

an intro and subparagraphs (1)-and (2)

.------------ ------------ 

- - - - - 

revised the language to better reflect what is intended. 

- --- -- - - --- --------------------------------------------- 

- 

- - 

e. Env-A 1212.07: Table 1212-6 should follow (a)(2), not e. DES has switched paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) so that 

( a ) ( 3 ) - 

-- --------------------------------------------------------- 

requirement .------- 

- 

Table-1212-6-can ------------------follow -

the

-

appropriate 

-- - ------ --- -- - - - - - - 

f. Env-A 1213.06 : (a)(3) appears to apply in all instances, f. Suggested revision has been made. 

but (a)(1) and (a)(2) seem to be mutually-exclusive. 

-Suggest converting-(a)(3) to (b) _renumbering (b) as (c) . 

- --- - ----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 

g. Env-A 1218.02(b) and (c)(3): The documents cited g. The requirement established in 1218.02(b) is to submit 

appear to require an MRS. data resulting from a test done in compliance with the 

specified test. As such, it is equivalent to a rule that 

requires an applicant to submit a title opinion prepared in 

accordance with current legal standards . DES is not 

enforcing the underlying standards (or test), and so no 

IBRS is needed. 

The requirement established in 1218.02(c)(3) is for the 

MSC to be 5% if certain conditions are met. DES is not 

enforcing the underlying testing requirement, and so no 

IBRS is needed. 

-- -------------------------- ----- --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

h. Various edits throughout the document. 

----------- - 

h. Rules have been edited appropriately .