PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS

964

MARYLAND REGISTER, VOL. 37, ISSUE 14, FRIDAY, JULY 2, 2010

(c) When calculating the total amount of NOx emitted during 

the period May 1 to September 30 under §D(3)(a) or (4)(a) and (b) of 

this regulation, exclude from those calculations the amount of NOx

emitted during the initial 10 hours of operation during that period; 

and

(d) Secure the ozone season NOx allowances by December 

31 of each year and submit those allowances to the Department for 

retirement by February 1 of the following year.

(3) The owner or operator of an existing load shaving unit 

installed on or before January 1, 2009, who chooses to secure ozone 

season NOx allowances in lieu of compliance with §B of this 

regulation shall:

(a) Calculate, in tons, the total amount of NOx emitted 

during the period May 1 to September 30;

(b) Multiply the total tons of NOx emitted, as calculated in 

§D(3)(a) of this regulation, by three; and

(c) Secure at least the same number of ozone season NOx

allowances as the number resulting from the calculation performed 

in §D(3)(b) of this regulation.

(4) The owner or operator of a new load shaving unit installed 

after January 1, 2009, who chooses to secure ozone season NOx

allowances in lieu of compliance with §C of this regulation shall:

(a) Calculate, in tons, the total amount of NOx, emitted 

during the period May 1 to September 30; 

(b) Calculate, in tons, the total amount of NOxthat would 

have been emitted during the period May 1 to September 30 if the 

engine had met the NOx emission rate of 1.4 grams per brake 

horsepower;

(c) Subtract the number calculated in §D(4)(b) from the 

number calculated in §D(4)(a), then multiply the result by five; and

(d) Secure at least the same number of ozone season NOx

allowances as the number resulting from the calculations performed 

in §D(4)(c) of this regulation. 

[D.] E. Record Keeping.

(1) The owner or operator of a load shaving unit [with a rated 

capacity equal to or greater than 200 horsepower] shall maintain an 

operating log that includes the date the unit operated and the total 

operating time for each day that the unit operated.

(2) The operating log shall be maintained for 5 years and made 

available to the Department upon request.

F. (text unchanged)

SHARI T. WILSON

Secretary of the Environment

Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY

26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from 

Specific Processes

Authority: Environment Article, §§1-101, 1-404, 2-101—2-103, 2-301—2-

303, 10-102, and 10-103, Annotated Code of Maryland 

Notice of Proposed Action

[10-177-P]

The Secretary of the Environment proposes to amend Regulation 

.06 under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from 

Specific Processes. 

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this action is to adopt the requirements of the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) for large appliance coating. EPA develops CTGs 

as guidance on control requirements for source categories. States can 

follow the CTGs or adopt more restrictive standards. MDE proposes 

to adopt a new standard and requirements for large appliance coating. 

This action will be submitted to the U.S. EPA for approval as a 

revision to Maryland's State Implementation Plan.

Background:

EPA published a CTG for large appliance coating, entitled 

―Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary 

Sources, Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances,‖ EPA450/2-77-034 (1977 CTG). In October 1982, EPA promulgated the 

National Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources 

(NSPS): Standards of Performance for Industrial Surface Coating: 

Large Appliances, 40 CFR part 60, subpart SS (1982 NSPS). In 2002, 

EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Surface Coating of Large Appliances, 40 

CFR part 63, subpart NNNN (2002 NESHAP). The 1977 CTG 

recommends and the 1982 NSPS requires VOC emissions limits 

based on VOC content of low VOC coating materials. The 2002 

NESHAP establishes organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 

emissions limits based on the organic HAP content of low organic 

HAP coating materials.

Large appliance coatings include, but are not limited to, materials 

referred to as paint, topcoats, basecoats, primers, enamels, and 

adhesives used in the manufacture of large appliance parts or 

products. A large appliance part is defined as any organic surface 

coated metal lid, door, casing, panel, or other interior or exterior 

metal part or accessory that is assembled to form a large appliance 

product. A large appliance product is also defined as any organic 

surface-coated metal range, oven, microwave oven, refrigerator, 

freezer, washer, dryer, dishwasher, water heater, or trash compactor 

manufactured for household, commercial, or recreational use.

Several different types of application technologies are used to 

apply liquid coatings, and the selection of the application technology 

can have a significant effect on the amount of coating used and the 

resulting VOC emissions from the operation. The CTG requires that 

coatings can only be applied by coating applicators such as: air 

atomized spray coating, electrostatic spray coating, high volume/low 

pressure (HVLP) spray coating, dip coating, flow coating, roll 

coating, electrocoating, and autophoretic coating. Powder coatings 

can be applied through electrostatic spraying or dipping.

Cleaning activities other than surface preparation also occur at 

large appliance coating facilities. Cleaning materials are used during 

these activities to remove coating residue or other unwanted materials 

from equipment related to coating operations, as well as the cleaning 

of spray guns, transfer lines (e.g., tubing or piping), tanks, and the 

interior of spray booths. These cleaning materials are typically 

mixtures of VOC containing solvents. Emission control requirements 

for cleaning materials are in the CTG. 

Affected Sources:

This action will affect sources that coat doors, cases, lids, panels, 

or other interior or exterior part or accessory of residential and 

commercial washers, dryers, ranges, refrigerators, freezers, water 

heaters, dishwashers, trash compactors, air conditioners, ovens, 

microwave ovens, and other similar products.

Requirements:

COMAR 26.11.19.06 is amended to set the VOC coating standard 

of 2.3 pounds per gallon of coating applied (minus water) / 0.275 

kilogram/liter of coating applied (minus water). Application of 

coatings on large appliances can only be conducted using one of the 

following methods:

1. Electrostatic application; 

2. HVLP spray; 

3. Flow coat; 

4. Roller coat; 

5. Dip coat including electrodeposition; 

6. Brush coat; or 
PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS

965

MARYLAND REGISTER, VOL. 37, ISSUE 14, FRIDAY, JULY 2, 2010

7. Other coating application method capable of achieving a 

transfer efficiency equivalent or better than that achieved by HVLP 

spraying.

The requirements of the regulation can be met by complying with 

the standard for VOC content of coating and using one of the options 

for application methods or achieving an overall capture and control of 

VOC emissions from the large appliance coating installation through 

the use of control equipment which achieves an overall VOC 

emissions reduction of at least 90 percent.

Expected Emissions Reductions:

EPA‘s CTG for large appliance coating operations will result in 

minimal VOC emissions reductions in Maryland. However, 

emissions of VOCs from large appliance coating operations are 

expected to be reduced by 18 percent nationally. The maximum 

benefit will be provided during the ozone season when VOCs readily 

combine with NOxto form the pollutant ground level ozone.

Comparison to Federal Standards

There is a corresponding federal standard to this proposed action, 

but the proposed action is not more restrictive or stringent.

Estimate of Economic Impact

I. Summary of Economic Impact. The economic impact of these 

amendments has been estimated by EPA on a national level. Cost 

effectiveness is approximately $500/ton of VOC controlled. The 

impact on the Department is going to be minimal as affected sources 

are already regulated. The Department will need to ensure 

compliance with the new standard and requirements.

Revenue (R+/R-)

II. Types of Economic 

Impact.

Expenditure 

(E+/E-) Magnitude

A. On issuing agency: (E+) Minimal

B. On other State 

agencies: (E+) Minimal

C. On local governments: (E+) Minimal

Benefit (+)

Cost (-) Magnitude

D. On regulated 

industries or trade groups: (-)

$500/ton of VOC 

controlled

E. On other industries or 

trade groups: (+) Unable to Estimate

F. Direct and indirect 

effects on public: (+) Unable to Estimate

III. Assumptions. (Identified by Impact Letter and Number from 

Section II.)

A. Inspections and reporting would be required if new materials 

are used or an add-on control device is installed.

B. Permits and licensing may be required for the installation of 

control devices and the use of new materials.

C. Local governments may be required to review and issue permits 

if a control device is installed to meet requirements.

D. The impact on the regulated industry has been estimated by 

EPA to be $500/ton VOC for compliance with the requirements of 

the CTG.

E. The installation of air pollution control devices may be 

necessary having a positive impact on those companies that 

manufacture, sell, and install the equipment.

F. This action will help improve Maryland‘s air quality and will 

result in fewer negative health effects on the general public from air 

pollution.

Economic Impact on Small Businesses

The proposed action has minimal or no economic impact on small 

businesses.

Impact on Individuals with Disabilities

The proposed action has an impact on individuals with disabilities 

as follows:

This action will have a positive impact on individuals with 

disabilities involving respiratory problems by reducing air pollutants 

that contribute to disease.

Opportunity for Public Comment

The Department of the Environment will hold a public hearing on 

the proposed action on August 4, 2010 at 10 a.m. at the Department 

of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, 1st Floor Aeris 

Conference Room, Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1720. Interested 

persons are invited to attend and express their views. Comments may 

be sent to Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator, Air and 

Radiation Management Administration, Department of the 

Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 730, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230-1720, or emailed to drabin@mde.state.md.us. 

Comments must be received not later than August 4, 2010, or be 

submitted at the hearing. For more information, call Deborah Rabin 

at 410-537-3240.

Copies of the proposed action and supporting documents are 

available for review at the following locations: The Air and Radiation 

Management Administration; regional offices of the Department in 

Cumberland and Salisbury; all local air quality control offices; and 

local health departments in those counties not having separate air 

quality control offices.

Anyone needing special accommodations at the public hearing 

should contact the Department's Fair Practices Office at 410-537-

3964. TTY users may contact the Department through the Maryland 

Relay Service at 1-800-735-2258. 

.06 Large Appliance Coating.

[A.] (proposed for repeal)

A. Definition. 

(1) In this regulation, the following term has the meaning 

indicated.

(2) Large Appliance Coating.

(a) "Large appliance coating" means the coating of doors, 

cases, lids, panels, or other interior or exterior parts or accessories

of residential and commercial washers, dryers, cooking equipment 

(including ranges, ovens, and microwave ovens), refrigerators, 

freezers, water heaters, dishwashers, trash compactors, air 

conditioners, and other similar products. 

(b) “Large appliance coating” does not mean the coating of 

toasters, counter-top grills, and similar small products.

B. [Emissions Standards] Coating Standard. 

(1) (text unchanged) 

[(2) A person may not cause or permit the discharge into the 

atmosphere of any VOC from a large appliance coating installation in 

excess of 2.8 pounds per gallon of coating applied (minus water) 

(0.34 kilogram/liter of coating applied (minus water)).]

(2) A person who uses a large appliance coating installation: 

(a) May not cause or permit the discharge into the 

atmosphere of any VOC from a large appliance coating installation 

in excess of 2.3 pounds per gallon of coating applied (excluding 

water) (0.275 kilogram/liter of coating applied (excluding water)); or
PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS

966

MARYLAND REGISTER, VOL. 37, ISSUE 14, FRIDAY, JULY 2, 2010

(b) Shall use control equipment to achieve an overall VOC 

emissions reduction of 90 percent or greater from the large appliance 

coating installation at the affected facility.

(3) A person who complies with §B(2)(a) of this regulation 

shall use one or more of the following application methods:

(a) Electrostatic application;

(b) HVLP spray;

(c) Flow coat;

(d) Roller coat;

(e) Dip coat including electrodeposition;

(f) Brush coat; or

(g) Other coating application method that has a transfer 

efficiency equivalent to or better than that achieved by HVLP 

spraying.

SHARI T. WILSON

Secretary of the Environment

Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY

26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from 

Specific Processes

Authority: Environment Article, §§1-101, 1-404, 2-101—2-103, 2-301—2-

303, 10-102, and 10-103, Annotated Code of Maryland 

Notice of Proposed Action

[10-176-P]

The Secretary of the Environment proposes to amend Regulation 

.11 under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from 

Specific Processes. 

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this action is to incorporate the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for 

lithographic and letterpress printing into the State‘s current 

regulations for the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC). The 

Clean Air Act requires state implementation plans (SIPs) for 

nonattainment areas to include reasonably available control 

technologies (RACT) for sources of emissions. EPA develops CTGs 

as guidance to assist states in determining RACT for those sources. 

States can follow the CTGs or adopt more restrictive standards. The 

Department proposes to adopt the CTG standards for lithographic and 

letterpress printing. The standards will reduce VOC emissions from 

inks, fountain solutions, and cleaning materials used in lithographic 

and letterpress printing. 

This action will be submitted to the U.S. EPA for approval as a 

revision to Maryland‘s State Implementation Plan.

Background

In 1993, EPA published a draft CTG for lithographic printing (58 

FR 59261). After reviewing comments on the draft CTG and review 

of additional information, EPA published an alternative control 

techniques (ACT) document in June 1994 that provided supplemental 

information for states to use in developing rules based on RACT for 

lithographic printing. The draft CTG and ACT provide information 

on the lithographic printing industry, VOC emissions from that 

industry, available control technologies for controlling emissions, and 

the costs of available controls. The current RACT is similar to the 

one proposed in 1993. EPA developed the recommendations after 

reviewing existing state and local VOC emission reduction 

approaches, reviewing the draft CTG and ACT, and considering 

information obtained since issuance of the ACT.

Letterpress printing and lithographic printing have several 

important similarities, including similar sources of VOC emissions 

and similar available VOC control approaches. In light of these 

similarities, EPA relied heavily on the substantial data and 

information included in the CTG and ACT for lithographic printing 

in formulating the recommendations for RACT for the letterpress 

printing industry. 

The current CTG provides control recommendations for reducing 

VOC emissions stemming from the use of fountain solutions, 

cleaning materials, and inks in lithographic printing and cleaning 

materials and inks in letterpress printing.

The control recommendations in the CTG for cleaning materials 

apply to letterpress and lithographic printing; and those for fountain 

solutions apply to lithographic printing. 

Affected Sources:

These proposed amendments affect sources that use lithographic 

press and letterpress equipment.

Requirements:

The proposed amendments set standards for:

1. Heatset lithographic printing presses, including presses with a 

potential to emit VOC of 25 tons or more per year from the dryer, 

prior to controls;

2. Heatset letterpress printing presses with a potential to emit VOC 

of 25 tons or more per year from the dryer, prior to controls. These 

regulations exclude heatset presses used for book printing and heatset 

presses with maximum web width of 22 inches;

3. Coldset or non-heatset web lithographic printing presses;

4. Sheet fed lithographic printing press with cylinder width of at 

least 18 inches or a sheet size greater than 11 inches by 17 inches;

5. Heatset web lithographic printing presses located at a premises 

from which the actual VOC emissions from all lithographic web 

printing presses are 100 pounds or more per day;

6. Cleaning solutions used on the premises in excess of 110 

gallons per year;

7. Control device testing; and 

8. Record keeping and monitoring.

Impact on Ambient Air Quality:

The proposed amendments set standards for lithographic and 

letterpress printing. VOC emissions reductions in Maryland would be 

approximately 0.08 tons/day. The maximum benefit will be provided 

during the ozone season when VOCs readily combine with NOxto 

form the pollutant ground level ozone. 

Comparison to Federal Standards

There is a corresponding federal standard to this proposed action, 

but the proposed action is not more restrictive or stringent.

Estimate of Economic Impact

I. Summary of Economic Impact. These proposed regulatory 

amendments adopt as regulations the CTG for lithographic and 

letterpress printing. The economic impact of these amendments has 

been estimated by EPA on a national level. Cost effectiveness is 

approximately $800 to $2,100/ton of VOC controlled. 

Revenue (R+/R-)

II. Types of Economic 

Impact.

Expenditure 

(E+/E-) Magnitude

A. On issuing agency: (E+) Minimal

B. On other State agencies: (E+) Minimal

C. On local governments: (E+) Minimal