UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y % REGIO N 1 Xj^l/Z

. | 1 CONGRES S STREET , SUIT E 110 0 ^ ^ BOSTON , MASSACHUSETT S 02114-202 3

February 18 , 200

4

Karen L
. Rega

s DEP/BWP/Busines s Complianc e Divisio n On e Winter Street, 8 t hFloo r Boston , M A 0210 8 Attentio n 31 0 CM R7.0

0 Comment

s Dea r Ms
. Regas : Th e Massachusett

s Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Protectio n hel d publi c hearing s o n severa l propose d revision s t o it s air

pollutio n contro l regulations , 31 0 CM R7.00 , e t seq. , o n Februar

y 1 1 an d 12 , 2004
. EP A staf f hav e reviewe d th

e propose d revision s an

d comment

s ar e provide d i n th

e Enclosures
. I f you hav e an y question s o n th

e enclose d comments , please contac t th e appropriat

e EP A staf f a s outline d below : VO C RAC T Ann e Arnol d 617-918-1047 Ne w Sourc e Review Brenda n McCahil l 617-918-165 2 Opacit y Ti mWilliamso n 617-918-109 9 Than k you fo r th e opportunit

y t o revie w these propose

d revisions
. Sincerely ,

Davi d B
. Conroy , Actin g <$hie f Ai r Program s Branch Enclosure s
cc : Donal d Squires , M A DE P Barbar aKwetz , M A DE

P

Tol l Fre e • 1 -888-372-734 1 Interne t Addres s (URL ) • http://www.epa.gov/region 1 Recycled/Recyclabl e •Printe d wit h Vegetabl e Oi l Base d Ink s o n Recycle d Pape r(Minimu m 30 % Postconsumer )Enclosur e 1 EP A COMMENT S O N FEBRUAR Y 200 4 PROPOSE

D REVISION S T O 31 0 CM R7.0 0
1
. EP A recommends tha

t th e definitio n o f

th e ter m"nonattainmen

t area " be revise d a

s follows : "NONATTAINMEN T ARE A mean s a n are aclassifie d designate

d b y th e EP A a s not meeting o r exceedin g th e Nationa l Ambient Ai r Qualit y Standar d fo r acriteri apollutant publishe d a

t 40 CF R Par t 81
. Th e curren t Massachusett

s attainmen

t statu s i s publishe d a

t 40 CF R 81.322 , Subpar

t C - Section 10

7 Attainmen

t Statu s Designations. " 2
. Currently , th

e definitio n o f

th e ter m"potentia

l emission s o r

potential to emit " include s physica l an d operationa

l limitation s on capacity , includin g ai r pollutio n contro l equipment , i f th e limitatio n i s state

d i n th e facility' s pla

n approval(s)
. Th

e DE P i s proposin g to revis e thi s ter mto als o include limitation s o n th e capacit y i f th e limitatio n i s state

d i n th e facility' s "emissio n contro l plan(s) , operating permit , certification(s) , restricte d emissio n status , notification(s ) an d applicabl e regulations. " EP A i s concerne

d tha t som e o f th e item s o n thi s expande

d list , suc h a s th e emission contro l pla

n whic h i s submitte d b y th e facility , ma

y no t be practicabl y enforceable
. Specificall y o f

concer n i s th e us e o f th e revise d definitio n i n Massachusetts ' miscellaneou s meta l parts an d product s (MMPP ) rule , 31 0 CM R7.18(11)
. A s stated , i n 31 0 CM R7.18( 1 l)(a) , thi s rul e applie s to aperso

n who operate s MMP

P coating line s "whic h hav e th e potential t

o emit equa l to o r greate r tha n te n ton s pe r yea r o f VOC. " Therefore , EPA recommends tha t 31 0 CM R 7.18( 1 l)(a ) be revise d t

o referenc e "federa

l potentia l to emit, " ater

mwhic h i s alread

y define d i n 31 0 CM R7.00
. 3
. Massachusett

s i s proposin g to ad

d to 31 0 CM R7.0

0 definition s o f

th e followin g terms associate d wit h automobil e refinishing : adhesio n promoter ; elastomeric coating ; impac t resistan t coating ; underbod

y coating ; unifor mfinis h blender ; an d weld-throug h primer
. Th e propose d definition s ar

e consisten

t wit h EPA' s definition s o f thes e terms foun d a

t 40 CF R Par t 5 9 Subpar

t B , "National Volatil e Organic Compoun d Emissio n Standard

s fo r Automobil e Refmis h Coatings. " I n EPA' s rule , al l o f these terms ar

e use d i n th e definitio n o f

th e ter m"specialt

y coating, " fo r

whic h a n emissio n limi t

i s specified
. I n Massachusetts ' rule , however , th e definitio n o f

th e ter m"specialt

y coating " i n 31 0 CM R7.0 0 currentl y include s some , but no t all , o f these terms . Therefore , EP A recommend

s tha t th e definitio n o f

"specialt y coating " be revised t o rea d a s follows : "SPECIALT Y COATIN G mean s aproduct

whic h i s necessar

y du e to unusua

l jo b performanc e requirements
. Thes e coating s o

r additive s include , bu t

ar e no t limite d to , adhesio n promoters , unifor mfinis h blenders , elastomeric materials , impac t resistan t coatings , underbod

y coatings , weld-through primers , glos s flatteners , brigh t meta l tri m repair , an d anti-glare/safet

y coatings. "Enclosur e 2 EP A COMMENT S O N FEBRUAR Y 200 4 PROPOSE

D REVISION S T O 31 0 CM R7.02(l)(b)(2 ) 31 0 CM R7.02(l)(b) 2 Presumptiv e Plan Approval s - Th e draf t provisio n woul d allo w source s to construct

ane w sourc e o r modificatio n base

d o n th e presumptio n that , i f

i t doe s no t hea r fro mth e DE P withi n 6

0 day s afte r submittin g aLimite d Pla n Applicatio n (LPA) , th

e DE P ha s approve d th e source' s LP A an

d ha s mad e i t th e source' s pla

n approval
. EP

A doe s not agre e tha t thi s provisio n i s approvabl e unde r federa l regulation s governin g th e Stat e preconstructio n program . I n particular , 4 0 CF R § 51.160(b ) require s States to develo p permittin g plan s tha

t include mean

s b y whic h th

e Stat e wil l preven

t th e constructio n o

r modificatio n o f

afacilit y i f

th e constructio n o

r modificatio n wil l (1 ) resul t i n aviolatio n o f

applicabl e portion s o f

th e contro l strategy , o

r (2 ) interfer

e wit h th e attainmen

t o r maintenance o f

aNAAQS
. 4 0 CF

R §51.160(b)
. Whil e 31 0 CM R7.02(l)(b) 2 allow s th e DE P t o disapprove a

n LP A withi n 6

0 days o f receivin g th e applicatio n an

d paymen t o f th e permi t applicatio n fee , i t

als o clearl y allow s project s t o procee d i n th e absenc e o f DE P review
. Onc

e thi s 60-da

y perio d ha

s expired , 31 0 CM R 7.02(l)(b) 2 provide s n

o mean s fo r th e Stat e t o preven t constructio n o

r modificatio n o f

asource , eve n i f th e DE P late r find s tha t suc h constructio n o

r modificatio n wil l result

i n aviolatio n o f applicabl e requirements
. EP A als o note s tha

t th e provisio n essentiall

y allow s fo r

asourc e to se t it s ow n enforceable permi t conditions
. Eve

n i f th e propose d complianc e requirements established i n a n applicatio n ar

e no t practicably enforceable , d o no t protect emission limits , o

r contradic t

othe r stat e regulations , the

y nevertheles s becom

e th e source' s "state-approved " complianc e requirements i f th e DE P fail s t o respon d i n 6 0 days
. I f th e DE P find s tha

t asourc e i s violatin g anationa

l standar d o r a n applicabl e portio n o f

acontro l strateg

y bu t th e sourc e i s complyin g wit h th

e presumptiv e approval' s emission limit s an d conditions , th

e DE P an d EP A ha s little , i f any , enforcemen

t remedy
. Th e provisio n als o undermine s th e DEP' s an

d EPA' s abilit y to see

k a n adequat e remed y onc e a sourc e ha s begu n constructio n o

r modificatio n unde

r aPresumptive Pla

n Approval
. 31 0 CM R 7.02( 1 )(b) 2 provide s tha

t an y LP A "shal l b

e deeme d granted " unless , withi n th e 6 0 day-perio d fo r DE P review , th

e DE P notifie s th

e applican

t o f adeficienc y o

r denie s th e LP A i n writing , o

r notifie s th

e applican

t i n writin g tha

t awritte n approva

l i s required
. Give n th

e equitie s involve d wher e asourc e ha s begu n constructio n o

r modificatio n i n accordanc e wit h a n approve d LPA , a permittin g authority' s abilit y t o sto p o r alte r constructio n o

r modificatio n activitie s i s severel y restrained onc

e th e LP A ha s bee n "deeme d granted " b y th

e DEP
. EP A understand

s th e DEP' s desir

e t o streamlin

e it s permittin g program . However , th e propose d Presumptive Pla

n Approval doe

s no t adequatel y allo w th

e stat e to preven

t th e constructio n o

r modificatio n a

t afacilit y tha

t coul d resul

t i n aviolation
. I n addition , th e proposa l ha s significant enforcemen

t issues
. EP

A believe s th

e DEP' s recen

t expansion o f

th e "permi t b y rule " regulation s a

t 31 0 CM R7.0

3 an d "exemptions " a

t 31 0 CM R7.02 wil l remove man y small activitie s fro mth

e case-by-cas

e pla n approva l revie w process . EP

A encourages th

e DE P t oexpan

d upon thes

e provision s whic h furthe r administrativ e efficienc y whil e maintainin g environmenta

l benefits
.Enclosur e 3 EP A COMMENT S ON FEBRUAR Y 200 4 PROPOSE

D REVISION S T O 31 0 CM R7.0 3 1.31 0 CM R7.03(16)(d

) currently require s th

e us e o f electrostati c o

r HVL P (hig h volum

e lo w pressure ) spra y application
. Th

e DE P i s proposin g to amen

d thi s section t

o als o allo w "an

y othe r coating applicatio n metho d approve d b y th e Departmen

t i n writing. " Th

e amendmen

t a s state d raise s th e issu e o f Director' s discretion
. Allowin g suc h aprovisio n woul d be considere d mor e reasonabl e i f th e criteri ab y whic h th

e DEP' s determinatio n wil l be mad e ar e include d i n th

e rule
. Fo r example , 31 0 CM R7.03(16)(d) coul d be revise d to rea d a s follows : "Spra y gun s shal l utiliz e on

e o f th e followin g methods
. . . 1
. Electrostati c spra

y application ; or , 2
. Hig h Volume Lo w Pressur e (HVLP ) spra

y application ; o

r 3
. An y othe

r coating applicatio n metho d tha t achieve s atransfe

r efficienc y o f

a t leas t 65 % an d i s approve

d b y th e Departmen

t i n writing. " A simila r provisio n i s include d i n Rhod e Island' s rul e fo r

automobile refinishin g operations , Regulatio n No
. 30
. Alternatively , th e criteri acoul d be state

d mor e generally , i n whic h cas

e 31 0 CM R7.03(16)(d)(3 ) migh t allo w "an

y othe r coatin g applicatio n metho d tha t achieves atransfe

r efficienc y equivalen

t t o electrostati c o

r HVL P spra

y applicatio n an

d i s approve

d b y th e Departmen

t i n writing. " 2
. 31 0 CM R7.03(16)(h) currently require s tha t spra y gu n cleaning b

e performe d insid

e atotall y enclose d system . Th

e DE P i s proposing to amen

d thi s section t

o allo w atotall y enclose

d o r equall y effectiv e system . Addin g suc h languag e to thi s provisio n woul d mak e i t difficul t t o enforce
. 3
. Th e DE P i s proposing t

o ad d ane w section , 31 0 CM R7.03(16)(1) , tha t specifie s records fo r automotiv e refinishin g operations
. Surfac e preparatio n product s ar e reference d a

t th e beginnin g o f thi s section , however, thi s referenc e shoul d be carrie d throughou t th e entir e provision
. EPA , therefore , recommend

s tha t 31 0 CM R7.03(16)(1 ) be revise d t o rea d a s follows : "A s a n alternativ e t

o 31 0 CM R7.03(16)(k) l an d (k)2 , persons subject

t o 31 0 CM R 7.18(28 ) automotive refinishin g shal l maintai n purchas e record s o f coating s an

d surface preparation products on amonthl y basis
. Th e purchas e record s must

b e summarize

d an d includ e coating category , coatin g o r coatin g component, o

r surfac e preparation product a s identifie d on th

e container , th

e quantit y o f eac h coating , coating component, o r surfac e preparation produc t

an d th e VO C conten

t (pounds pe

r gallon ) o f

eac h coating o

r surface preparation product , after mixin g according to th

e manufacturer' s instructions
. Record s mus t b e mad e available to representative s o f th e Departmen

t upo n request. "Enclosur e 4 EPA COMMENT S ON FEBRUAR Y 200 4 PROPOSE

D REVISION S T O 31 0 CM R7.06(l)(c ) EP A appreciate s th

e car e wit h whic h DE

P ha s propose d to addres s th

e change s i n section 7.06(l)(c ) whic h EP

A requeste

d i n ou r notic e o f propose d conditiona

l approval
. 6 8 F

R 16959 , 1696 0 (Apri l 8 , 2003)
. W

e hav e on e suggestio

n fo r clarifyin g th

e minimu mrequirements fo r th e pla n o f good operatin

g practice s unde

r 7.06(l)(c)(2)(f)
. W

e recommen

d DE P include areferenc e t o th e maximumallowabl e opacit y limi t o f 2 7 percent , a

s provide d fo r

i n 7.06( 1 )(c) , s

o tha t applicants ar

e reminded abou

t th e uppe r bound o f an y alternativ e opacit

y limi t the y propos e i n their plans : f
. Propose visibl e emissio n limitation s no greate r tha n 2 7 percen t opacit y tha t th e facilit y wil l comply wit h durin g startup , shutdown , soo t blowin g an

d othe r specifie d operating conditions ;Enclosur e 5 EP A COMMENT S O N FEBRUAR Y 200 4 PROPOSE

D REVISION S T O 31 0 CM R7.1 8 1
. Th e DE P i s proposing to delet

e th e existin g 31 0 CM R7.18(27 ) coating mixin g tan k provision s an d t o amen d 31 0 CM R7.18(l)(c ) to appl y to coatin g mixin g tanks
. Th e existin g 31 0 CM R 7.18(27 ) provision s tha

t ar e to be delete

d include mor

e specifi c requirements tha n th e provision s i n 31 0 CMR7.18(l)(c)
. For example , 31 0 CM R7.18(27)(b)(2 ) require s tha t th e coatin g mixin g tan k li dexten d a t leas t 0. 5 inc h beyond th

e oute r ri mo f th e tan k o r be attache

d t o th e ri mo f th e tan k an d tha t th e li dmus t maintai n contac

t wit h th e ri mo f th e tan k fo r a t least 90 % o f th e rim' s circumference , wherea

s th e proposed 31 0 CM R7.18(l)(c ) states tha t "prope r coating mixin g tan

k operation shall include coverin g th e tan k wit h atigh t

fittin g lid. " Therefore , i t i s not clea r why Massachusett

s i s proposin g to delet

e th e mor e specifi c 31 0 CM R7.18(27 ) coating mixin g tan k provisions
. W

e recommen

d eithe r retainin g 31 0 CM R7.18(27 ) o r augmentin

g 31 0 CM R 7.18(l)(c ) t

o include provision s fro m31 0 CM R7.18(27 ) tha t mak e mixin g tan

k requirements clearly enforceable
. 2
. 31 0 CM R7.18(2)(g)(5) , whic h contain s th e equation fo r

calculatin g th

e dail y weighte d averag e VO C conten

t o f coating s applie d o n a

n individua l coating line , i s bein g amende d to include th e followin g statement : "Coatin g usag

e ma y be averaged , providin g th e unit s i n th

e equation ar

e th e sam e a s th e unit s tha t ar e use d i n th e sectio n o f

31 0 CM R7.1 8 tha

t applie s t o th e coating s include d i n th e dail y average . Onl y coatin g line s subject to th e sam e emission s standar

d ma y b e average d together. " Th e secon d sentenc e a s state d i s inappropriat

e becaus e th e dail y weighte d averag

e technique should onl y b

e use d fo r a n individua l coatin g line
. Cross-lin e averagin

g i s covere

d unde r 31 0 CM R7.18(2)(b ) an

d Appendi x B(4)
. Accordin g t o conversation s wit h DE

P staff , th e intentio n o f th e secon d sentenc e i s t o clarif

y tha t dail y weighte d averagin

g i s allowe d onl y fo r

coating s tha

t ar e subject t o th e sam e emissio n standard
. Therefore , EP A recommend

s tha t th e secon d sentenc e o f th e propose d amendmen

t to 31 0 CM R7.18(2)(g)(5 ) b e revise d a

s follows : "Onl y coating s fares subjec t to th e sam e emission s standar

d ma y b e average d together. " I n addition , th

e firs t sentenc e o f th e propose d amendmen

t i s confusin g a

s currently stated
. Accordin g t

o conversation s wit h DE

P staff , th e intentio n o f

th e firs t sentenc e i s t o allo w averagin g i n unit s othe

r tha n th e unit s o f lb s VO C pe

r gallo n o f solid s currently specifie d i n th e equation , dependin

g o n ho w th

e RAC T limi t

i s stated
. Suc

h a n approach , however, i s not relevan t fo r Massachusetts ' RAC T coatin g rules , according t o ho w th e emission limit s ar

e currently state

d i n 31 0 CM R7.18
. Specifically , th

e majorit y o f

th e coatin g emission limit s specifie d i n 31 0 CM R7.1 8 ar e i n unit s o f lb s VO C pe

r gallo n o f solids , a s currently specifie d i n th e 31 0 CM R7.18(2)(g)(5 ) equation
.Th

e onl y coatin g limit s tha

t ar e state d i n alternativ e unit s ar

e thos e fo r

flatwoo d panelin g tha

t ar e state d i n unit s o f

lb s VO C pe

r 100 0 s q f t coated , thos e fo r

textil e finishin g tha

t ar e state d i n lb s VO C pe r lb o f solids , an

d thos e fo r

automotiv e refinishin g tha t ar e state d i n lb s VO C pe

r gallo n o f coating , respectively
. First , i n th

e cas e o f flatwoo d paneling , Massachusett s ha s adopte d th e EP A recommende

d emission s limit s whic h ar e i n term s o f

lb s VO C pe

r 100 0 s q f t o f coate d surface
. EP

A establishe d th e limit s i n thes e term s to giv e operator s flexibilit y i n adjustin g th e VO C conten

t o f th e variou s coating s applie d to agive n panel , rathe r tha n settin g aVO C limi t

fo r eac h typ e o f coating
. Thus , atyp e o f

averaging ha

s alread y bee n incorporate d i n establishin g th e limit s an

d th e 31 0 CM R7.18(2)(g)(5 ) dail y weighte d averagin g equation i s no t

appropriat

e fo r thi s sourc

e category . Second, th

e dail y weighte d averagin g formul acoul d wor

k i f translated to unit s o f

lb s VO C pe

r gallo n o f coating
. However , automotiv e refinishin g i s th e onl y categor

y fo r whic h th e 31 0 CM R 7.1 8 RAC T emission limit s ar e currentl y state

d i n thes e terms , an

d dail y weighte d averagin g i s no t relevan t fo r thi s source category , sinc e EPA' s nationa l rul e "Nationa

l Volatile Organic Compoun d Emissio n Standards fo r Automobil e Refinis h Coatings " codifie d a t 40 CF R Par t 5 9 Subpar t B an d th e Massachusett

s automotiv e refinishin g rule , 31 0 CM R7.18(28) , requir e tha t coating manufacturers , a

s wel l a s thos e who appl

y th e coatings , mee

t th e specifie d emission limits
. Finally , i n th

e cas e o f Massachusetts ' textil e finishin g limit s whic h ar e state d i n unit s o f

lb s VO C pe r lb solid , dail y weighte d averaging woul d be appropriate
. However , i n thi s case , amas s base d formul ashoul d b e used , rathe r tha n usin g th e volum e base d formul ai n 31 0 CM R7.18(2)(g)(5)
. Therefore , i n orde

r to addres s th

e abov e concerns , EP

A recommend

s tha t th e firs t sentenc e o f th e propose d amendmen

t to 31 0 CM R 7.18(2)(g)(5 ) b e delete d an d tha t 31 0 CM R 7.18(2)(g ) b

e revise d t o rea d a s follows : "Dail y Weighte d Averaging
. An y perso n who owns , leases , operate s o r control s acoating lin e subject

to 31 0 CM R 7.18 , wit h th e exception o f

coatin g line s subjec t

t o 31 0 CM R 7.18(24 ) flatwoo d panelin g surfac e coating o r 31 0 CM R7.18(28 ) automotiv e refinishing
. ma y comply wit h th

e VO C emission s limitation s o f th e applicable sectio n o f

31 0 CM R 7.1 8 throug h th

e us e o f adail y weighte d averag

e on a n individua l coatin g line..
. 1
. th e dail y weighte d averag

e fo r eac h coatin g line , eac

h day , complie s with
. . .

5
. Th e dail y weighte d averag

e fo r eac h coating line , wit h th

e exceptio n o f

coating line s subjec t

t o 31 0 CM R7.18(26 ) textil e finishing , i s calculate d according t o th e followin g equation
. . . 26
. Fo r coatin g line s subject

t o 31 0 CM R7.18(26 ) textil e finishing , th e dail y weighte d averag

e fo r eac h coating lin e i s calculated according to th e followin g equation : VOC TM = I MiC , i = 1 M T where : VOCy M = th

e dail y weighte d averag

e VO C conten

t o f th e coating s use

d eac h da y o n eac h coating lin e i n unit s o f

pound s o f

VO C pe r poun d o f solids , a s applied ;
n = th

e numbe r o f differen t coating s applie d eac

h da y o n acoating line : M j = th

e mas s o f solid s a s applie d fo r

eac h coating , eac

h day , on eac

h coatin g line , i n unit s o f

pounds o f

solid s a s applied : C j = th

e VO C conten

t o f th e coating s use

d eac h da y o n eac h coating lin e i n unit s o f

pound s o f VO C pe r poun d o f solids , a s applied : M T= th

e tota l mas s o f

solid s a s applied , eac

h da y o n eac h coating line. " 3
. Th e provision s i n 31 0 CM R7.18(8 ) ar e bein g amende

d to include a

n exemptio n fo r

aqueou s cleaning operation s i f

th e cleaning flui d contain s n o mor e tha n 1 0 percen

t b y weight

organic material , excludin g soaps , an d al l organic material s hav e avapo r pressur e les s tha n 1 m mH g a t 25°C
. Sinc e Massachusetts ' degreasin g rul e wa s par t o f th e Massachusett

s federally-approve d SE

P prio r t o th e enactmen

t o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment

s o f 1990 , th e DE P mus t sho w tha t th e revision s to th

e rul e ar e consisten

t wit h th e requirements o f

th e Genera l Saving s Claus e i n Section 19

3 o f th e Clea n Ai r Act
. Specifically , Massachusett s must sho w tha t th e modification s t o th e rul e insur

e equivalen

t o r greate r reduction s i n VO C emissions
. I t appear s tha t exempting aqueou s cleaner s woul d encourag

e facilitie s t

o switc h t o aqueou s cleaning solutions , thereb y decreasin g VO C emissions
. Massachusett s should provide a

n explici t justificatio n tha

t thi s i s th e cas e an d tha t th e Genera l Saving s Clause ha

s bee n satisfied
. Fo

r example , suc

h a n equivalency demonstration coul d include acomparison o f th e degreasin

g emission s fro mafe w individua l facilitie s befor

e an d after thos e facilitie s switched t o aqueou s cleaning
. 4
. Th e 31 0 CM R7.18(19)(h ) SOCM I (syntheti c organi c chemica

l manufacturin g industry ) provision s ar

e bein g amende

d t o stat e tha t afacilit y must

submi t quarterly monitorin g reports t o th e DE P "unles s otherwis e notifie d b y th e Department, i n writing. " Also , th e lis t o f item s tha t shoul d be include d i n th

e repor t i s bein g deleted
. I t

i s not clea r wh y these changes ar

e being made , an d i t appear s these change

s ma y reduc e th e utilit y o f

th e monitorin g reports . 35
. 31 0 CM R7.18(21) , (22) , (23) , (25) , an d (26 ) ar e bein g amende

d to allo w a

n exemptio n fro m RAC T requirements fo r

severa l surfac e coating categorie s provide d tha t th e perso n obtain s an

d complie s wit h afederall y enforceable emission limi t whic h restrict s th

e potentia l emission s belo w th e applicabilit

y cut-off
. I t

i s no t clear, however , wh y 31 0 CM R7.18(24 ) i s no t als o being similarl y amended
. 6
. Table 7.18(28)(c) , whic h contain s th e emission limit s fo r

automotiv e refinishin g products , i s bein g amende

d t o include ane

w emission limi t

fo r multi-colore d topcoats . Thi s ne w limi t i s consisten t wit h EPA' s "Nationa

l Volatil e Organic Compoun d Emissio n Standards fo r Automobil e Refinis h Coatings, " codifie d a t 4 0 CF R Par t 5 9 Subpar

t B
. However , since Massachusetts ' existin g rul e doe s not specif y alimi t fo r multi-colore d topcoats , suc h coating s ar

e currentl y subject

to th e rule' s topcoa

t limit , whic h i s mor

e stringen t tha n th e proposed multi

colore d topcoa

t limit
. Therefore , although th e proposa l seem s technicall y reasonable , i t i s a relaxatio n o f

th e existin g rul e whic h ha

s alread y bee n approved int o th

e Massachusett

s SIP
. Also , i n th

e automotiv e refinishin g rule , 31 0 CM R7.18(28)(f ) i s bein g amende

d t o requir e a1.6 7 pounds o f VO C pe r gallo n o f produc t a s applie d emission limi t

fo r surfac e preparatio n products use d to clea n non-plasti c surface s an d ane w 6. 5 pounds o f

VO C pe r gallo n o f produc t a s applie d emission limi t

fo r surfac e preparatio n products use d to clea n ne w plasti c surfaces
. Suc

h limit s fo r surfac e preparation product s ar e consisten

t wit h th e limit s adopte

d b y othe r area s suc h a s Rhod e Islan d an d th e Sa n Dieg o Count

y Ai r Pollutio n Contro l District
. However , Massachusetts ' existin g rul e include s a1. 7 pounds o f

VO C pe r gallo n o f produc t a s applie d emission limi t

fo r al l surfac e preparation products
. Thus , althoug h th e proposa l seem s technicall y reasonable , i t i s a relaxatio n o f

th e existin g rul e whic h ha

s alread y bee n approved int o th

e Massachusett

s SIP
. I n addition , th

e automotiv e refinishin g rul e i s bein g amende d to includ e a

n exemptio n fo r

stenci l coating s an

d coating s tha

t ar e sol d i n non-refillabl e aerosol containers
. Thi s exemptio n seem s reasonabl e a s EPA' s rul e fo r

automobile refinishin g coating s als o include s a n exemptio n fo r coating s tha

t ar e sol d i n non-refillabl e aeroso l containers
. However , suc h a n exemptio n i s a relaxatio n o f

Massachusetts ' existin g rul e whic h ha s alread y bee n approve d int o th e SIP
. A s outline d above , Massachusett s i s proposing thre

e relaxation s t o it s automotiv e refinishin g rule
. I n orde

r fo r EP A to b e abl e to approv

e th e revise d rule , Massachusett s mus t mee t th e Sectio n 110(1 ) anti-bac

k slidin g provision s o f

th e Clea n Ai r Ac t (CAA) , sinc e th

e rul e ha s alread y bee n approve d int o th e Massachusett

s SE P since 1990
. I n orde

r to compensat

e fo r th e proposed relaxation s to th e automobile refinishin g rule , EP A recommends tha

t Massachusett

s conside r adopting th

e ne w requirements discusse

d below
. Th e Ozon e Transpor

t Commissio n (OTC ) ha

s develope

d mode l rule s fo r

severa l VO C sourc

e categorie s an

d th e OT C states , includin g Massachusetts , hav e signe d amemorandu

mo f understanding (MOU ) committin g t o adop t these model rules
. Althoug h Massachusett s alread y ha s rule s i n place fo r

th e categorie s addresse

d b y th e OTC mode l rules , i n som e cases , th

e state' s

4rule s d

o no t contain al l o f

th e requirement

s include d i n th

e OTC model rule
. Therefore , Massachusett

s shoul d conside

r adopting thes

e requirements
. Specifically , EP

A encourages th

e DE P t o conside r includin g i n it s degreasin g rul e aprovisio n whic h prohibit s th

e us e o f col d cleaning solvent

s wit h avapo

r pressur e o f 1. 0 m mH g o r greater , measure d a t 20°C
. Suc

h arequiremen

t i s include d i n th

e OTC' s "Mode l Rul e fo r Solven t Cleaning, " date

d Marc h 6 , 2001 , an

d ha s alread y bee n adopte d b y severa

l OT C states . I n orde

r t o tak e int o accoun

t som e o f th e concerns industr

y ha s previousl y raised regarding suc h a requirement , Massachusett s coul d adop

t th e OT C vapo r pressur e requiremen

t wit h certain specifie d exemptions , simila r to th e provisio n tha

t ha s bee n adopte d b y New York
. Fo

r example , Massachusett

s coul d ad d th e followin g provisio n t

o 31 0 CM R7.18(8)(a

) an d th e followin g definitio n to 31 0 CM R7.00 , respectively : "(a ) Col d Cleanin g Degreasing
. On o r after Decembe r 31,198 0 n

o perso n owning , operating , leasing o

r controllin g an

y solven t meta l degreasin

g facilit y whic h utilize s a col d cleaning degrease

r shal l cause, suffer , allo w o r permi t emission s o f

volatil e organi

c compound

s therefro munles s the

y comply wit h eithe

r 31 0 CM R7.18(8)(a

) 1
. through 6
. o

r 31 0 CM R7.18(8)(a)6
. through 9
. and , o n o r after Tdatel
. unles s the

y comply wit h 31 0 CMR7.18(8)(aM0
. 1
. eac h col d cleaning degrease

r i s equipped wit h acover.. .

10
. eac h col d cleaning degrease

r must us e asolven

t wit h avapo

r pressur e o f 1. 0 m mHg
. o r less , a t 20°C
. Thi s paragrap

h doe s no t appl y to degreasers : (i ) use d i n specia

l an d extrem e solven t meta l cleaning ; (li ) fo r whic h th e owne r o r operato r ha s receive d Departmen

t approva l o f a demonstration tha

t complianc e wit h th

e requiremen

t o f asolven t wit h a vapo r pressur e o f 1. 0 m mHg
. or less , a t 20° C wil l result

i n unsaf e operating conditions ; o

r (iii ) tha t ar e located i n apermanen

t tota l enclosur

e havin g contro l equipmen t tha t i s designe

d an d operate d wit h a n overal l VO C remova

l efficienc y o f

9 0 percen t o r greater. "
"SPECIAL AN D EXTREM E SOLVEN T META L CLEANIN G mean s th e us e o f degreasers : (a ) t o clea n meta l parts i n th

e manufacturin g an

d rewor k o f electroni c parts . 5assemblies , boxes , wirin g harnesses , sensor s an d connector

s use d i n aerospac

e service ; (b ) to clea n meta l parts use

d i n th e manufacturin g o f

ozone , nitrou s oxide , fluorine , chlorine , bromine , halogenate d compounds , o

r oxyge n i n concentration s greate r tha n 23 percent ; o

r (c ) t o clea n meta l parts expose

d to ozone , nitrou s oxide , fluorine , chlorine , bromine , halogenate

d compounds , o

r oxyge n i n concentration s greate r tha n 2 3 percent. " Furthermore , th

e DE P shoul d conside

r updatin g it s consume

r an d commercia

l products an

d architectura

l an d industrial maintenance (ATM ) coatin g requirements containe d i n 31 0 CM R7.2 5 to be consisten

t wit h thos e requirements include d i n th e OTC mode l rule s fo r

these sourc

e categories
. Massachusetts ' consume r product s rul e coul d be updated to . include mor e stringen t emission limit s fo r

som e o f th e product s containe d i n th e rule , a s wel l a s emission limit s fo r additiona l products
. For

example , Massachusetts ' rul e currentl y require s tha t hair sprays mee

t a 8 0 percen t VO C conten

t b y weigh t limit , wherea

s th e OT C mode l rule , an

d rule s adopte

d b y Ne w York , Pennsylvania , an

d Delaware , contai n a5 5 percen t VO C conten

t b y weight

limi t fo r hai r sprays , a s wel l a s a6 percen

t VO C conten

t b y weight

limi t fo r hair mousse s an d hai r stylin g gels
. Also , severa

l o f th e AT M coatin g limit s i n Massachusetts ' rul e coul d b e update d t o includ e th e mor e stringen t emission limit s contained i n th e OTC mode l rule
. For

example , Massachusetts ' rul e require s tha

t clea r an d pigmented fir e retardan

t coating s mee

t a85 0 an d 50 0 g VO C pe

r lite r limit , respectively , wherea s th e OTC mode l rule , an

d rule s adopte

d b y Ne w Yor

k an d Delaware , contain a65 0 an

d 35 0 g VO C pe

r lite r limi t fo r these coatings
. I n summary , th

e propose d relaxation s to Massachusetts ' automobil e refinishin g rul e ar e technically reasonable
. However , since th e rul e ha s alread y bee n approve d int o th e SEP , DE P must mee t th e anti-backslidin g provision s o f th e CAA
. Therefore , EP

A recommend

s tha t th e DE P adop t additiona l solven t meta l cleaning , consume

r an d commercia

l products , an

d AT M coating requirement

s i n accordanc

e wit h th e state' s OTC MO U commitment , t o compensat

e fo r th e propose d automobile refinishin g relaxations
. 7
. Sinc e Tabl e 7.18(28)(c ) o f

th e automotiv e refinishin g rul e i s bein g amended, th e DE P ma y wan t t o conside r als o clarifyin g som

e o f th e othe r limit s containe d i n th

e table
. Specifically , th

e table include s alimi t

fo r topcoats an

d another, les s stringent , limi t fo r thre e o r fou r stag e topcoats . EP

A recommend

s tha t th e tabl e be clarifie d to stat e tha t th e mor e stringen t topcoa t limi t applie s t o single an

d two-stag e topcoats . 8
. Th e DE P i s proposing ane

w section , 31 0 CM R7.18(28)(p) , whic h contain s recordkeepin g requirements fo r

th e automotiv e refinishin g rule
. Since thi s rul e include s VO C emission limit s fo r coatings , a

s wel l a s surfac e preparatio n products , th e recordkeeping section should includ e
6requirement s fo r bot h coating s an

d surfac e preparatio n products
. Th e beginnin g o f

th e propose d 31 0 CM R7.18(28)(p ) doe s mentio n surfac e preparatio n products , however, tha t referenc e i s not carrie d through al l o f

th e provision' s subsections
. I n addition , although th e propose d sectio n require s tha

t records b e mad e availabl e t

o th e DE P upon request, th

e provisio n shoul d also stat e tha t records b e mad e available to th

e EP A an d shoul d specif

y atim e perio d fo r

recor d retention
. I n orde r t o addres s these issues , EP A recommends tha

t 31 0 CM R7.18(28)(p ) b

e revised t

o rea d a s follows : "Recordkeepin

g Requirements
. An y perso n subject to 31 0 CM R7.18(28)(a

) mus t maintai n purchase record s o f coating s an

d surfac e preparation products o n amonthl y basis
. Th e purchase record s must

be summarize

d an d include : 1
. Eac h coating category , coating , coating component, o r surfac e preparation product a s identifie d o n th

e container ; 2
. Th e quantit y o f eac h coatin g o

r surfac e preparatio n product , an d 3
. Th e VO C conten

t (pounds pe

r gallon ) o f

eac h coating o

r surfac e preparation product , after

mixin g according to th

e manufacturer' s instructions
. 4
. Records kept

t o demonstrat

e complianc e must

be kept on sit e fo r five year s an d must b e mad e availabl e to representative s o f th e Departmen

t o r EP A upon request. "

7