## MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard • Baltimore MD 21230 410-537-3000 • 1-800-633-6101 • www.mde.state.md.us

Martin O'Malley Governor Robert M. Summers, Ph.D.

Anthony G

. Brown Lieutenant Governor



# ..,,. 

# --

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin Regional Administrator 

### (3RAOO) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region Ill 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia PA 19103-2029

# Dear~rvin: ) ha..Jn /

The purpose of this letter is to submit the enclosed State Implementation Plan (SIP) Secretary

Revision 

### # 12-08 concerning adoption of the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency's Control Techniques Guidelines for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts which include controls for pleasure craft coating operations. This SIP Revision includes new Regulation .27-1 under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes.

The Notice of Proposed Action was published in the Maryland Register on June 15, 2012. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2012. The action was adopted on October 22, 2012. The Notice of Final Action was published on November 2, 2012 and the action became effective on November 12, 2012. All administrative procedures were properly followed throughout the adoption process.

I certify that the electronic copy of this SIP submittal (compact disk enclosed) is an exact duplicate of the official hard copy

. If you have any questions concerning this SIP action, please feel free to call me at (410) 537-3084 or Mr. George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr., Director of the Air and Radiation Management Administration, at (410) 537-3255.

Sincerely,

# ~ Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. Secretary

RMS:dhr Enclosure**~** Recycled Paper 

### www. mde.state.md.us TIY U s ers 1

- 800-735-2258 Via Maryland Relay Service

# MARYLAND

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

REVISION # 12 - 08

Adoption of the Requirements of the

Environmental Protection Agency's

Control Techniques Guidelines for Pleasure Craft Coating Operations

Prepared by:



# MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard • 

## Baltimore MD 21230 410-537-3000 • 

## 1-800-633-6101 • 

## www.mde.state.md.us

# T E C H N I C A L 

# S U P P O R T 

# D O C U M E N T

Department of the Environment 

# COMAR 26.11.19.27-1 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Pleasure Craft Coating Operations

12-19-11

Purpose of the New Regulations/Amendments

The primary purpose of this regulation is to adopt the requirements of the EPA’s Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for miscellaneous me tal and plastic parts which include controls for pleasure craft coating operations. EPA devel ops CTGs as guidance on control requirements for source categories. States can follow the CT Gs or adopt more restrictive standards. MDE proposes to adopt new standards a nd requirements that have been developed in coordination with EPA and trade associations represen ting the pleasure craft industry.

Background

EPA developed the Control Techniques Guidelin es for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings after reviewing the 1978 CTG, the 1988 NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines (40 CFR 60 Subpart TTT), the 1994 ACT for Surface Coating of Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Pl astic Parts, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 40 CFR 63 Subpart MMMM, and existing State and local VOC em ission reduction approaches. The 1994 ACT provided analysis and options for alternative co ntrol technologies ava ilable for VOC emissions from the surface coating of plastic parts in th e automotive and other transportation equipment and business machine industries without any recommendations for standards.

The miscellaneous metal and plastic parts catego ry includes pleasure craf ts (recreational boats) along with components that are used in fabric ated metal products, small and large farm machinery, commercial and industrial machinery and equipment, automotive or transportation equipment, interior or exterior automotive parts, construction equipment, motor vehicle accessories, bicycles and sporting goods, toys , recreational vehicles , extruded aluminum components, railroad cars, heavier vehicles, la wn and garden equipment, business machines, laboratory and medical equipment, electronic equipment, and other industrial and household products.

The pleasure craft coating categor y does not include coatings that are a part of other product categories listed under Section 183(e) of the Act for which CTGs have been published or included in other CTGs. The Fiberglass Boat Ma nufacturing CTG is a separate category and the standards and requirements pertaining to the manufacturing process are not included in this regulation.

Despite the fact that California has implemented standards for pleasure craft coating operations for several categories of coatings and that EPA had originally publis hed more restrictive

1

### standards, the standards have undergone revisions based on revi ews of industry practices and capabilities and product performance.

The pleasure craft industry f ound the standards for four categ ories to be technologically infeasible, considering the performance requir ements of the coatings. EPA reviewed the information and data from industry and determin ed that states could consider alternative standards as proposed in the recommendation of the industry for the following coatings: Finish Primer/Surfacer; Antifouling Sealer/Tiecoat; Ot her Substrate Antifoulant; and Extreme High Gloss. The proposed regulation incorporates the original recommendations of the industry and also includes changes requested through the stakeholde r and public hearing process that have been approved by EPA.

Affected Sources

The proposed regulation affects pleasure craft and fiberglass bo at coating operations at a premises with actual VOC emissi ons of 15 pounds or more per da y from coating operations as determined on a monthly average. 15 pounds or more per day from coating operations as determined on a monthly average is the applicabili ty threshold that determines whether a facility needs to meet the standards and requ irements of the proposed regulation.

15 pounds or more per day from coating operations as determined on a monthly average is not an emission limit for affected facilities. An affected facility subject to the regulation may service as many pleasure craft as they are capable of, however , they will need to meet the coating standards and other requirements of the regulation.

The compliance date for the regulation is January 1, 2013.

Requirements

This regulation requires the affected sources to meet specific coating standards for the coating and maintenance of pleasure craf t and fiberglass boats. There are also requirements established for application methods of coatings and emissi on controls for cleaning materials. Affected sources are also required to maintain record s on coating products purchased for compliance determination.

Several different types of app lication technologies are used to apply liquid coatings, and the selection of the application t echnology can have a significant effect on the amount of coating used and the resulting VOC emissions from th e operation. The CTG require s that coatings can only be applied by coating applicators such as: El ectrostatic application; HVLP spray; Flow coat; Roller coat; Dip coat including elect rodeposition; Brush coat; Airless spray; Air assisted airless spray; or other coating application method capable of achieving a transfer efficiency equivalent or better than that achieved by HVLP spraying. Powder coatings can be applied through electrostatic spraying or dipping.

Cleaning activities other than surf ace preparation also occur at fac ilities engaged in pleasure craft coating operations. Cleaning materials are used du ring these activities to remove coating residue

### or other unwanted materials from equipment relate d to coating operations, as well as the cleaning of spray guns, transfer lines (e.g., tubing or piping), tanks, and the in terior of spray booths. These cleaning materials are typically mixtures of VOC containing solvents. Emission control requirements for cleaning materials are established in the CTG.

Expected Emissions Reductions

The proposed regulation sets standards for coa tings, application methods and work practices. Emissions of VOCs from pleasure craft coati ng operations are expected to be reduced by 35 percent nationally. The maximum benefit will be provided during the ozone season when VOCs readily combine with NOx to form the pollutant ground level ozone.

Comparison to Federal Standards

The amendments and proposed regulation a dopt the requirements in EPA’s CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coa tings, EPA -453/R-08-003, Se ptember 2008 affecting pleasure craft coating operations. There are no other federal reasonably available control technology standards for this category. Multiple facilities are covered under this CTG and each may be subject to additional, specific federal requirements.

Economic Impact on Affected Sources, th e Department, other State Agencies, Local Government, other Industries or Trade Groups, the Public

EPA estimated the economic impact of this regula tion on a national level. Cost effectiveness is approximately $1,800/ton of VOC controlled. The standards and requirements of the CTG have already been implemented in other states and as a result cost of production of compliant coatings has come down from initial phase of implemen tation. As the CTGs are implemented nationally, the costs of compliant coatings are expected to be reduced further.

Economic Impact on Small Businesses

Economic impact on small business has been estimated by EPA on a national level and is determined to be small for affected sources due to an increased price of compliant materials.

Submission to EPA as Revision to Maryland' s SIP (or 111(d) Plan, or Title V Program)

The proposed regulation will be submitted to th e U.S. EPA for approval as a revision to Maryland's State Implementation Plan.

Appendixes Appendix A - American Coatings Associati on (ACA) Comments on the Inclusion of South Coast Rule 1106.1 as RACT for Coating of Pleasure Craft (and Associated Parts and Products) into Final CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Appendix B – June 1, 2010 EPA memorandum on Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coati ngs – Industry request for reconsideration

### Appendix C – Stakeholder Comments Appendix D – Maryland Department of th e Environment email correspondence with stakeholders

### Appendix A

American Coatings Association (ACA) Commen ts on the Inclusion of South Coast Rule 1106.1 as RACT for Coating of Pleasure Craft (and Asso ciated Parts and Products) into Final CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic PartsAmerican Coatings Association (ACA) Comments on the Inclusion of South Coast Rule 1106.1 as RACT for Coating of Pleasure Craft (and Associated Parts and Products) into Final CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts (Originally filed with USEPA on September 14, 2009 by NPCA/FSC T- the predecessor of the American Coatings Association)

May `17, 2010

Introduction

We do not agree with the EPA’s recommendatio n that South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1106.1 (“Rule 1106.1”) is suitable for consideration as Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT) for the coating of pleasure craft (and/or associated parts and products) in the final Control Technique Guideline for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts published by the EPA in Septem ber 2008 (the ‘CTG’).

ACA companies manufacture the vast majority of the coatings sold in the pleasure craft coating industry and has a long record of working with USEPA on providing marine coatings technology information in USEPA’s efforts to develop VOC and HAPs standards for the marine and pleasure craft industry . Most re cently, member companies have provided the Agency with extensive current coatings information in the development of a NESHAP for pleasure craft coatings. This data might be usefully examined to help determine the RACT VOC recommended CTG standard for the coatings as well.

The CTG program as developed and implemented by the EPA is intended to identify VOC emission control techniques and technology that meet the criteria of the federal Clean Air Act’s “Reasonably Available Control Tech nology” (RACT). A CTG represents EPA’s recommendations to be adopted by the Stat es in their federally-mandated State Implementation Plans (SIPs). As such, CTGs have a long tradition of careful selection of existing technologies only after extensive revi ew. Traditionally this process has sought the views of the industry or sector to which the standard would apply.

The proposed Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG did not mention pleasure craft surface coating operations. This additional recommendation appeared first in the Final CTG. Compare the Proposed Determination and Draft CTG in the Federal Register at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/183e/gen/fr14jy08.pdf (no mention of pleasure craft) to the Final Determination and final CTG in the Federal Register at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/183e/gen/fr07oc08.pdf (pleasure craft is discussed for first time).

Thus industry as a whole did not have the oppo rtunity to raise issues of concern about the CTG identifying Rule 1106.1 from the SCAQMD as a national RACT standard.

In reconstructing events, the introduction of t he pleasure craft standard in the final document occurred in part because of EPA’s concern that pleasure craft coatings might otherwise be subject to the very low VOC limits set generally for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts in the CTG (even lower than those specified in Rule 1106.1).

Additionally it received a comment after issuing the proposed CTG from a yacht coatings manufacturer, which requested that separate VOC limits be set for pleasure craft coatings using Rule 1106.1’s coatings categories. The manufacturer apparently did not mean to endorse the rule’s limits –only its categories of coatin gs- and has sent a clarification to EPA to that effect.



### 1We wish to make clear that our comments her e are not intended to criticize the USEPA in any way. The Agency has traditionally reached out to industry in developing CTGs and did so here as well. We have contacted EPA regarding our concern and have offered to work with the Agency to develop recommendations for a national RACT recommendation that is economically reasonable and technologically feasible.

As our comments will demonstrate, the Rule 1106.1 limits do not represent RACT for the national pleasure craft coatings industry.

As a technical matter, Rule 1106.1 was developed on the basis of the “best available retrofit control technology” (BARCT) under the California Clean Air Act, which is more stringent than the national RACT standard. As characterized by California Air Resources Board staff documents 1 :
“BARCT is a state version of RACT, alth ough it has stringency more akin to BACT [“best available control technology”] as defined by the federal Clean Air Act. BARCT is required under certain conditions in Calif ornia districts having moderate, serious, severe, or extreme air pollution as defined by Section 40921.5, Chapter 10, Part 1, Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code.”

While a long-lived BARCT standard may evolve into a national RACT standard with the passage of time and with industry effort to improve technology and application techniques, this has not occurred with 1106.1 standards. As will be shown later in this document, industry has made significant efforts to develop lower VOC coatings for the pleasure craft industry. However, a review of the history of Rule 1106. 1 itself demonstrates that the SCAQMD had to revise the rule after its adoption to allow an additional two-year period to comply with higher VOC limits when it was demonstrated that the lim its originally mandated were technologically infeasible 2

. These limits became effective in 2001, and as we will discuss later in this document, the pleasure craft industry responded in the extended two-year period to ‘extract itself from the SCAQMD’.

This document explains why we consider Ru le 1106.1 to be unsuitable for reference as RACT, and highlights the impact its implementat ion by non-attainment states and areas will have on the economy and pleasure craft building and surface coating industry.

In light of the significant ch anges that the EPA made to the dra ft CTG as published in the final CTG, we would like to use this document to suggest a proposal which we believe is much more economically reasonable and technologically feasible.

Unsuitability of South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1 as RACT

The following key points explain why South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1 is unsuitable for consideration as RACT by ozone non-attainment states and areas:

1. The VOC limits within Rule 1106.1 are too re strictive to allow coating manufacturers to produce products which meet both technical and customer requirements. The industry does not currently have compliant coatings to sell in states and areas where they will be required if guidance in the CTG on pleasure craft coating operations is followed. Rule 1106.1 has had a negative effect on South Coas t’s pleasure craft business since it was introduced in 1992. In the 1970’s and 80’s, Ca lifornia was considered by many to be the pleasure craft building capital of the world, with the following pleasure craft builders operating there: Catalina Yachts, Columbia Yachts, Islander Yachts, Capital Marine, Corsair Marine, Ericson Ya chts, Laguna Yachts, Westsa il, Pacific Seacraft, Bill Lee Yachts, Pacific Boats, Moore Bros, Express, and Wilderness Boats. The introduction of

1 For more details see http://www.arb.ca.gov/bact/docs/ssrcalifornia.htm 2 For more information use the following link http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/1999/99012a.html



### 2pleasure craft rules such as Rule 1106.1 into Air Quality Districts like the South Coast has been a pivotal factor to these builders either mo ving out of these areas into other parts of the US, or to other countries.

At one time, 75% of Catalina Yachts production came out of the California plant based in South Coast district, but this has now been transferred to a newer site based in Florida (where there are currently no pleasure craft coating VOC restrictions). Ericson Yachts has undergone reorganization and now operates as Pacific Seacraft in North Carolina. Corsair Marine, which at one time operated out of San Diego, has now moved production to a plant in Vietnam. The yacht construction business has largely died out or relocated to neighbouring districts or states whic h have no pleasure craft VOC rules.

The pleasure craft surface coating industry is a mobile one, and pleasure craft (especially the larger ones) can dock anywhere in the US or even around the world. According to the 2002 Census (US Census Bureau; NAICS codes 336612 and 336611), the Boat Building and Repair industry in the US had a revenue of $20 billion and employed approximately 140,000 people. Since 2002 the industry has been in general decline – losing share and status to non-US suppliers. There is a very real concern that California’s experience will be repeated elsewhere if the wider adoption of Rule 1106.1 goes ahead. This would be disastrous for the general economy.

2. The pleasure craft coatings industry has been given insufficient time to produce compliant coatings which meet the performance and aesthetic requirements of pleasure craftowners and meet the pleasure craft coating limits of Rule 1106.1 before ozone noncompliant states adopt the rule into State Implementation Plans (SIP). Because of the likely lack of compliant products, it is concei vable that other states forced to implement Rule 1106.1 will find themselves in a similar position to that of South Coast with a declining pleasure craft coating business contributing to dwindling economy and increased unemployment.

3. South Coast AQMD has serious ozone problems and has been allocated the ozone classification of ‘Severe-17’ by the EPA. In order to reduce the extent of its ozone problem, South Coast AQMD has implemented a series of VOC rules (including Rule 1106.1) which are the most restrictive in the world. Table 1 contains different ozone ‘design values’ for the ozone non-attainment areas in a state in which pleasure craft coating business is currently thriving (Florida) and from San Bernardino in South Coast AQMD in California. The values are taken from a sample from the EPA’s document titled ‘Design Values by County for 2008 Ozone Standard’ 3 . The table shows that the ozone problem in South Coast is significantly worse, between 46 – 57% higher, than in Florida.

Table 1- Ozone Design Values for 2008 ozone standard taken from monitored air quality data between the years of 2004 and 2006

State County Design Value /ppm (three year average used to compare level of 2009 ozone standard (0.075ppm) to determine compliance Comparison to San Bernardino California San Bernardino 0.121 -

Florida Bay 0.078 55% less Florida Duval 0.077 57% less Florida Escambia 0.083 46% less

3 Follow this link for full table http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/pdfs/2008_03_design_values_2004_2006.pdf



### 3Florida Hillsborough 0.080 51% less

4. Even in the State of California, only five other Districts have found the need to introduce rules which regulate the VOC content of pleasure craft coatings, as follow:

Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1106-1 Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1106 Ventura County APCD Rule 74-24-1 San Diego APCD Rule 67.18 Bay Area AQMD Rule 8-43

Some of these rules have exclusion statem ents to prevent applicability to small boat owners / users, i.e. the Do-It-Yourself (DIY) market.

Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1106 provides an ex emption for facilities whose rate per day of coating use is less than one gallon, including any VOC-containing materials added to the original coating as supplied by the manufacturer.

Bay Area AQMD Rule 8-43 provides an ex clusion for coating of pleasure craft or commercial fishing vessels using coatings pu rchased in containers of one gallon or less.

San Diego County APCD Rule 67.18 provides an exemption for non-commercial marine coating operations performed by individuals at their personal residence for the purpose of coating their own pleasure craft(s).

Rule 1106.1 was developed to tackle serious ozone non-attainment in South Coast AQMD in California by significantly restrict ing the VOC levels of pleasure craft coatings and is not necessary for adoption in non-attainm ent areas which EPA classifies as ‘Moderate’ like those in Florida; that is, the majority of non-attainment areas nationwide.

Therefore we consider that adopting Rule 1106.1 as a national RACT recommendation is excessive, as it was developed to address si tuations where non-attainment areas are defined as ‘Severe’.

5. SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 itself requires an additional speciality category to allow for recent regulatory developments resulting from the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Antifouling Systems Convention (2001). Furt her information on this can be found in the ‘Industry Proposal’ section of this document.

Current Situation

The industry continues to work to develop lower VOC coatings for the US pleasure craft market. However, high solids and water based technologies have not been immediately successful in providing compliant coatings which also meet technical and customer demands. Coating manufacturers will not have complete portfolios of compliant products to meet the VOC limits of Rule 1106.1 to market by t he time States will have updated their SIPs and established compliance dates for the requirements for pleasure craft surface coating operations. In addition, end-use customers will have insufficient time to adapt their working practices to accommodate new coating products – one of the strategies advocated by the CTG.

The pleasure craft coatings market is a global one with increasing competition from Asia and Europe. The professional market segment is growing year by year, and none more so than the large yacht market dealing in vessels greater than 80’ Length Over All (LOA) or the ‘superyacht’ market as it is commonly referred to. The following figures illustrate the relative size and state of the US superyacht business:



### 4• 2008 statistics show ten US yards signing up for over one mile of superyacht hull (1903 yards) worth of new orders, with an average hull value estimated at one million dollars per cubic meter.

• US builders share of the global superyacht market was 15% in 2008, compared to 17.8% in 2007, and 19.4% in 2006

• Superyacht deliveries in 2007 were 23 from the US, compared to 121 from Europe

Of equal importance is the refit/repair market sect or in the US. The growth rate of the repair market (as seen over the last 10 years) has be en essential to the North American pleasure craft industry. Some regions and states rely heavily on the income that the pleasure craft industry provides. Laws, regulations, and/or boatyard practices that potentially limit the competitive edge could seriously impact the regional and even national economy by deterring foreign and domestic clientele. If boats can not be completed to the aesthetic standards demanded in North America (due to limitations on products and/or applications), it is highly likely that business in this sect or, including charter bu siness, will be lost to South America, Mexico and Europe. This risk is also present when making decisions that will narrow the choice and ability to effectively paint and su pply pleasure craft related projects.

Florida is a good example of how important economically the pleasure craft sectors are. The Florida market relies on competit ive rates, access to skilled labor resources, and the ability to service both domestic and foreign vessels. The Broward-Dade-Palm Beach “Tri-County Region” has remained at the forefront of supery acht service and repair sector, where industry growth has doubled in the last ten years. The direct economic impact of superyacht repair and maintenance projects at local boat yards in the Tri-County Region was estimated to be $219.8 million during 2006.

Between 1997 and 2007, the financial contribution of the superyacht refit sector in Florida can be summarized as follows 4 :

• 46% of routine maintenance projects in Tri-County boatyards were from non-U.S.- based vessels during 2006 alone. Over hal f of major overhaul projects were completed on foreign yachts at Tri-County boatyards.

• Each of the 1400 superyac hts serviced by Tri-County boatyards in 2006 supported five full-time personnel per vessel at area boatyards and related industries, supporting an estimated 7300 jobs.

• An estimated $204 million in superyacht charter fees were paid via Tri-County charter firms which received commissions of appr oximately $30.6 million in 2006; twice that of 1997.

• One 164-foot charter vessel will have dire ct impact on a region with expenditures of approximately $2.6 million. The direct impact, if occurring in the Tri-County region, would result in a total economic impact of $5.1 million from a charter superyacht’s operation.

Add to this some 20,000 boats manufactured or repaired/refitted yearly in the US outside the superyacht sector, and it is clear that a mult itude of facilities could be affected by the pleasure craft coating guidance in the CTG. As with many other industries, the US pleasure craft industry is suffering a downturn due to the current economic climate. The smaller boat industry has been significantly affected, with one major company quoting sales of boats down by as much as 64% 5 . The restrictive nature of the VO C limits contained within Rule 1106.1 will significantly limit any competitive advantages for US pleas ure craft builders with cost, technical, and aesthetic requirements severely compromised.

4 Source: Growth, current activity and Economic Impac ts of Mega Yachts in South Florida 1997 – 2007. T.J Murray & Associates, prepared on behalf of Mari ne Industries Association of South Florida and the Broward Alliance

5 Brunswick 2009 Q1 results http://www.brunswick.com/news/new sstories/release/1/1282727.php



### 5Setting Rule 1106.1 as RACT for pleasure craft c oatings in the CTG will adversely effect the pleasure craft coatings industry in ozone non- attainment areas, resulting in increases in unemployment as the industry struggles to comply. This puts additional pressure on an industry already in decline in the US, as more business moves to Europe and Asia.

In Europe legislation to control VOC emission s permits pleasure craft builders and painters more flexibility by allowing them to operate an “ave raging” approach. This strategy works well since it allows facilities to use a combination of high and low VOC products providing, at the end of the year, the average value is below a ce rtain target level. This allows emission targets to be met without forcing facilities and paint manufacturers to compromise on critical product performance. For example, yards can attain an overall VOC reduction by using low VOC primer and filler systems wi th compatible high VOC extreme gloss topcoats to deliver a solution that is competitive, durable and bes t meets the customer’s expectations.

In Asia there is little VOC legislation to rest rict the pleasure craft coatings market from continuing to grow (at the potential expense of losses in market areas with more restrictive requirements).

Industry Proposal

We acknowledge that VOC emission reductions are required from pleasure craft coating operations, but we urge the EPA to take an appr oach which will minimize adverse impact on the pleasure craft industry in the US. In doing so, the EPA should consider the following proposals, which involve modification to the current pleasure craft coating guidance in the final Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG.

Consideration of an Averaging Approach

Experience in Europe indicates that an effective means of regulating VOC emissions from pleasure craft surface coating ope rations is to offer facilities the option to average emissions over a specified time period (in the case of t he European rules, the time period is a year). This provides flexibility to coatings manu facturers and end-use customers, to allow VOC emission reductions while minimizing ad verse impacts on ea ch facility.

This approach requires affected facilities to main tain an inventory of all products used in their surface coating operations, including any additi onal solvents required for surface preparation, thinning of coatings for proper application, and cleanup. These record-keeping requirements are similar to those already used in existing EPA and State VOC regulations for other surface coatings operations.

The average VOC emission figure over the spec ified time period would be maintained at or below the level defined by the EPA, in consulta tion with the pleasure craft industry. A properly-vetted averaging approach could r eplace the current CTG category-and-limit approach, or it could be offered as an alternat ive compliance option to a category-and-limit approach.

With regard to the current category-and -limit approach taken from Rule 1106.1, we strongly encourage the EPA to consider and implement the following modifications to the current Final CTG pleasure craft coating guidance:

1. Extended time for compliance

Adequate opportunity was not provided for indust ry to explain why South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1 was inappropriate for inclusion in the Final CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG. Now, it is vital to the contin ued success of the multi-billion dollar US pleasure craft industry that more time is provided fo r paint manufacturers to develop and introduce



### 6lower-VOC coatings, and for customers to adjus t their operations to the use of these new coatings.

In order to comply with the VOC limits in Rule 1106.1, new technologies and formulations will need to be developed and implemented before realisti c reductions in VOC content will occur. In turn, these technologies and formulations need to be validated. It takes significant time to develop and test new products to satisfy this technically demanding market, and which will ensure minimum disruption to the pleasure craft building and coating industry. Rushing inferior products to market has the potential to be disastrous as customers in this sector tend to be conservative, choosing products with a known track record and that best protect the value of their investment. If customers cannot apply a preferred product, they are likely to seek this product elsewhere i.e. the business will be lost to an alternative district, state or even country.

In addition, it is vital that pleasure craft coat ing users have sufficient time to implement the necessary procedural cha nges required to work with low VO C products. Users will also want to have flexibility in choice of coating pro ducts and schemes which means that they will need time to adequately assess them making sure productivity and quality are not negatively impacted, leading to reduced competitiveness.

It is also necessary to allow coating manufact urers sufficient time to register any new low VOC antifouling coatings under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and corresponding State programs that re gulate biocidal products prior to sale, a process which can take upwards of one year.

For these reasons, industry requires an interim period of at least four years (until August 2013) to allow sufficient time for coating manufacturers and users to adequately prepare. For the duration of this interim period indust ry requires that the provisions of Rule 1106.1 in the CTG are modified according to section 2. In addition, the provisions of Rule 1106.1 in the CTG should also be modified according to section 3 to provide categories and VOC levels that represent RACT through the interim period and beyond.

2. Modification of Rule 1106.1 categories and VOC limits (4 years interim period)

To allow coating manufacturers to continue trading in ozone non-compliance areas the following minor modification is recommended to Rule 1106.1 for a four years interim period only.

Revised VOC limits for the “Finish Primer/Surfacer” Category Boat owners have very high expectations for the final look of their boats. The finish is expected to be super smooth, super glossy (alm ost ‘mirror-like’) and durable. Coatings can be applied by a variety of application methods (b rush, roller or spray) and must flow out to give a smooth, glossy finish. In order to achi eve such effects, products with a higher solvent content (lower solids content) are required fo r both the topcoats and the primers which go beneath them. Introducing high solids/low VOC pr imers 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 solid s/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.

In order to ensure products can continue to be supplied into ozone non-compliance areas during the next four years that continue to m eet the aesthetic and performance requirements demanded by boat owners, the industry strongly suggest the VOC levels of the Rule 1106.1 “Finish Primer/Surfacer” coating categor y should be revised from 420 g/L to 600 g/L

. 3. Permanent changes required to Rule 1106.1



### 7In addition to the temporary changes suggested in section 2 for the four year interim period, industry also requires EPA to implement the following permanent changes to the categories and levels taken from Rule 1106.1 for use in the CTG with immediate effect.

Additional Speciality Category and VOC Limit: Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat Rule 1106.1 is dated and there are more recent requirements for an additional category to reflect pleasure craft coatings of the modern day which are more environmentally friendly and/or compliant with International law.

A new category is required as a result of t he IMO Antifouling Systems convention (IMO AFS) and should be added to the categories taken from Rule 1106.1. The category should be named ‘ Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat ’ with a maximum VOC content of 420 g/L . 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) 6 . This coating type is required to promote adhesion of biocid e-free, non-stick foul re lease coatings when applied to vessels. The use of biocide-free coatings brings significant environmental benefits.

Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coats must contain a VOC up to 420 g/L 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 hi gher VOC content to maintain an acceptable application viscosity) so the coating can form a flexible yet complete barrier over an underlying paint film. An appropriate definition for this type of coating would be...

“ a coating applied over Biocidal antifouling co ating for the purpose of preventing release of biocides into the environment and/or to promote adhesion between an antifouling and a primer or other antifoulings.”

Revised VOC Limit for Antifouling Category Significant time and effort have been invested by industry to develop low VOC antifouling coatings suitable for use on pleasure craft. It is possible to reduce the VOC content of antifouling coatings to a certain level, after which product performance becomes significantly compromised i.e. the coating begins to foul after a much shorter time as the performance lifetime of the product is reduced. If this happens the antifouling must be reapplied more frequently resulting in a greater overall VOC contri bution. This nullifies the merit of producing the lower VOC antifouling in the first instance.

The current Federal HAP level for Antifoulings in the US is 400g/L 7 as is the CTG 8 which covers the same sector. South Coast AQMD Rule 1106 which applies to Marine coating operations also contains a VOC limit for antifouli ng coatings of 400g/L. This limit is more suitable to represent RACT for this coating category and we suggest the following VOC limit amendment;

Category of “Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating” – amend from 330g/L to 400g/L

Revised VOC Limit for Extreme High Gloss Coatings The Extreme High Gloss Coatings category represents a comparatively small but critical, high value segment of the overall pleasure craft market.

High solids topcoats have not been well received in the North American pleasure craft coating market. In general, users have found the finish t hat these products provide to be inferior to traditional, higher VOC containing products. Although high solids and water-based technologies are available and in use in other industries (e.g. car refinishing and aviation) the

6 For compliance with the IMO-AFS Convention, boats previously coated with a non-compliant antifouling are able to comply if they overcoat with a sealer coat prior to application of a compliant coating.
7 National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Poll utants from Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Operations 8 Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding an d Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating)



### 8controlled application conditions which make t he use of these coatings possible in those industries are neither available nor possib le for the pleasure craft coating industry.

Additionally, some low VOC topcoats, originatin g from the car refinish market and now being marketed for pleasure craft usage, are base d on a polymer type which provides reduced durability. These coatings have a reduced lifet ime and their use will necessitate a more frequent recoating schedule which means in relative terms, more VOC is emitted.

The aesthetic properties that topcoats give to t he topsides of pleasure craft are of primary importance to boat owners. This should not be underestimated or dism issed. 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 t heir use that reduces the competitiveness of individual yards will have a direct and immedi ate bearing on employment levels and state

revenues.
In a typical extreme gloss coatings scheme, the topcoat represents less than 40% of the overall VOC burden and less than 10% of total yacht coatings on an annualised basis. Rule 1106.1 was developed to tackle serious ozone non-attainment in South Coast AQMD in California. It is overly severe and restrictive for adoption for t he majority of non-attainment areas where the problem is ‘Moderate’ accord ing to the EPA. The industry feels that restricting the VOC of the other coating categor ies and setting the VOC limit for Extreme High Gloss topcoats to 600 g/L , provides individual states with a balanced VOC reduction strategy that is appropriate to the challenge and that doe s not seriously impact the competitiveness of the industry in the state.

Revised Coating Category Definition for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat As mentioned above, application of topcoats is undertaken in a variety of environmental conditions which can have an affect on the final gloss level of the product at the point of application. To manage this variation it is suggested that the gloss level stated in the definition of the Extreme High Gloss Topcoa ts category be lowered slightly to read... “Extreme high gloss coating means any coating which achieves greater than 90 percent reflectance on a 60° meter when tested by ASTM Method D 523-89”

4. EPA’s development of Pleasure Craft MACT Standard The industry is also aware that separate EPA staff are currently determining a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standard to control Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) emissions from pleasure craft coating operat ions in the US. Pleasure craft coating manufacturers have submitted a substantial am ount of information to help the EPA develop a rule which meets the requirements of all parties concerned. The industry is keen to ensure that the recommendations the EPA make for pleasure craft coati ng operations in the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG are consistent with what is planned for the Pleasure Craft MACT standard (proposal due out early next year).

Summary

The pleasure craft industry was not given the normal opportunity to consult with the EPA sufficiently during the drafting of the CTG. It t herefore feels that it is imperative that even at this stage, the changes to the provisions of Rule 1106.1 in the CTG put forward in this document are fully considered in order to safegu ard an industry that is critical to the US economy and already under significant pressure.

There can be no doubt that the implementation of the provisions of South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1 (in its present form) in the CTG to regulat e the VOC content of pleasure craft coatings, into the SIP’s of ozone non-attainment states is overly severe and will have serious negative effects on the pleasure craft coating industry in these areas. NPCA respectfully ask the EPA to revise the CTG in the following way, to make it more relevant for the US pleasure craft coating industry;



### 9

### 10 1. Regulate VOC emissions from facilities us ing pleasure craft coat ings by including an averaging approach as a compliance option

If this is not deemed possible then points 2 and 3 should apply.

2. Amend the CTG “Finish Primer/Surfacer” VOC limit from 420 to 600g/L for a 4 year interim period to allow coating manufacturers and users sufficient time to develop and implement compliant coatings.

3. Make changes that are required to the Rule 1106.1 provisions of the CTG with immediate and permanent effect as follows,

• Add an additional speciality category of “Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat” with VOC limit of 420g/L to align the CTG with the IMOAFS;

• Amend “Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating” VOC limit from 330g/L to 400g/L;

• Amend the “Extreme High Gloss” VOC limit from 420 g/L to 600 g/L

, reflecting the very specialised nature of the coatings in this category;

• Revise the coating category definition of “Extreme High Gloss Topcoat” to read: “ Extreme high gloss coating means any coating which achieves greater than 90 percent reflectance on a 60° meter when tested by ASTM Method D 523-89”

In addition, the pleasure craft industry has already worked with EPA staff to provide information to support the development of a Pleasure Craft MACT Standard. Thus we request:
4. Provisions of the pleasure craft categories and VOC limits of the CTG must be consistent with the development of requirements in the planned Pleasure Craft MACT Standard.

NPCA, with the help of the pleasure craft coatin gs industry, would like to work with the EPA on this issue and we would welcome an opportunity to discuss this proposal in more detail during a face to face meeting at the EPA offices.

### Appendix B

June 1, 2010 EPA memorandum on C ontrol Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings – Industr y request for reconsideration

### Appendix C

Stakeholder Comments

### 23 September 2011

Deborah Rabin Regulations Coordinator Air and Radiation Management Administration Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Blvd., Ste 730 Baltimore, MD 21230

- 1720

VIA EMAIL: drabin@mde.state.md.us

Dear Ms. Rabin:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comment on proposed regulation under Titl e 26 : 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes and .27

- 1 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Metal Pleasure Craft Coating Operations. My name is Sus an Zellers and I am the executive director o f the Marine Trades Association of Maryland (MTAM). MTAM represents the recreational boating industry trades in Maryland. We currently have about 350 marine businesses as members. Our annual economic impact study conducted by Maryland Sea Grant College shows the industry is about a $2.3 billion industry employing more than 35,000 Marylanders.

Marine Trades Association of Maryland (MTAM) would like to provide comment on the proposed rule with regards to the 15 pou nds per day of VOC emissions threshold. MTAM and its members are concerned of the upper limit daily constraints. The business of pre paring and painting yachts and other vessels at our members ’ facilities is a highly competitive and short cycle environment. Due to the large number of boats that are launched in Maryland during the spring season and the restraints of indoor storage and our cold regional winters, coatings applicati on cannot occur at all times in the year. Coatings application occur s during a short 8

- 12 week period in the spring with a secondary season in October and November of about 4

- 5 weeks. In the spring, our members are averaging 15

- 20 boats per week and in the short fall

season probably only about 5

- 8 boats per week. The major concern is not the aggregate of the 15 pounds per day VOC upper limit, but rather the daily limit. MTAM would propose that a averaging approach or yearly total be adopted.

Second, MTAM would like to clarify that all of our members regularly apply coatings to both metal and fiberglass surfaces. Therefore, regulatory agreement and consideration should be made between the two regulations. MTAM would suggest that the industry RACT proposal be used as a guidelin e in these circumstances as it considers the efficacy of both coatings technology and Marina/Boatyard ability to meet a new regulatory requirement. MTAM has

### supplied an excerpt from the American Coatings Association (ACA) on the RACT proposal to

meet USEP A’s CTG requirement.

Our focus and mission at MTAM is to support our members as they provide valuable economic importance and vitality to our state. Most resid ents of Maryland wh om own a boat have it serviced here and that is the essence of this industry ’ s economic vitality in Maryland

. MTAM would encourage MD Department of the Environment to consider proposing the industry RAC T proposal with an averaging approach to daily limits.

Sinc erely,

Susan Zellers Executive Director



### P.O. Box 3148, Annapolis, Maryland 21403

– 410

- 269

- 0741

– info @mtam.orgE

xcerpt from the American Coatings Association (ACA) on the RACT proposal to meet USEP A’s

CTG requirement :

The Pleasure Craft provisions of the EPA CTG do not represent Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) for this industry sector.

The Draft EPA CTG did not mention p leasure c raft surface c oating operations. EPA introduced the

language of South Coast Air Quality Management Division (SCAQMD) Rule 1106.1 “Pleasure Craft

Coating Operations” into the Final EPA CTG . This was a pparently done with concern that pleasure craft

surface coating oper ations mi ght otherwise be subject to 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

this EPA action.

Development of RACT that is appropriate for Pleasure C raft Surface Coating operations in

Maryland should address t he following points:

1. Consideration of an “Averaging Approach” as an alternative compliance option. This approach is

successfully used in Europe to provide flexibility to coating manufacturers and end

- use customers to
provide VOC emission reductions while minimizing adverse economic and productivity impacts at

each affected facility.

2. Provi sion of appropriate time until the final compliance date to allow the development, testing, and

commercial introduction of low

- VOC pleasure craft coatings . Rushing produ cts into this market has

the potential for disastrous consequences, as boat builders and pleasure craft owners tend to be

conservative; they choose coatings with demonstrated performance that best protect the value of

their products/investments. A period o f four years is suggested to allow completion of existing

development projects to bring lower

- VOC pleasure craft coatings to the US market.3. Revis ion of the categories and VOC limits from the CTG to address current and future product

developments in the pl easure craft industry. Examples include revised VOC limits for several coating

categories; a revised definition of “Extreme High Gloss” topcoats ; and the introduction of a new

category definition and VOC limit for “Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat” coatings.

Maryland EPA should be consistent with other EPA rulemaking for this industrial sector.

The pleasure craft industry is aware that EPA is currently evaluating the National Emission Standard for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations

( 40 CFR Part 63 Su b part 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 Coating operations.

Coatings manufacturers have already provi ded product information to EPA to assist in this process, and

the industry supports rulemaking that will provide a consistent approach to reduce emissions of both VOC

and HAPs in this industrial sector.

The Pleasure Craft Industry is ready and willing to work with Federal, State, and Local air agencies

on this issue.

The p leasure c raft 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 Regio nal 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 conditions and global competition.

- END

-

### September 27, 2011

Deborah Rabin Regulations Coordinator Air and Radiation Management Administration Dept. of Environment 1800 Washington Blvd. Suite 730 Baltimore, MD 21230

- 1720 drabin@mde.state.md.us

RE: Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Proces ses: Metal Pleasure Craft Coatings Operations in Maryland

Dear Ms. Rabin

, The American Coatings Association (ACA) 1 

### appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the above referenced rulemaking. We would like to take this opportunity to address sev er al issues we have identified. Please see the attached comments for a more detailed explanation of our concerns.

1. VOC Limits for Pleasure Craft Coatings Falls Slightly Short

Maryland correctly states in the preamble to this proposed rule that EPA wrot e in a memo

, dated June 1, 2010 (which was a response to an ACA petition ) that individual states could adopt alternative

s tandards. We applaud Maryland for accepting this stance however i t appears that the standards for VOC levels fall 10g/L short on sever al categories. This may be due to the conversion factor used between English (lb VOC/gal) and metric (kg VOC/liter ) units

. Therefore we request that the limits for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat be raised from 590g/L to 600g/L, Finish Primer Surfacer also from 590g/L to 600g/L, and Other substrate Antifouling from 390g/L to 400g/L. See attached comments for a complete table of industry recommended VOC levels.

2. Discrepancy in the Definition for Extreme High Gloss

We request the definition for extreme high g loss read as follows : “ 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 ”. For detailed technical explanations

, please see the attached comments.

3. Pre

- treatm ent Wash Primer Definition Missing

In a related matter, t he definition for Pre

- treatment Wash Primer is missing from the proposal. Perhaps this was done in error. We request the definition for Pre

- treatment Wash primer be : “ Pre

Treatment Wash Primer mean s 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

1 ACA is a voluntary, non

- profit 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 a dvancement and promotion of the industry through educational and professional development services.

### fiberglass and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of su bsequent coatings ”

. For detailed technical explanations

, please see the attached comments.

4. Application Methods

The section on application methods lists several techniques that are not used in the metal pleasure craft industry. These are electrostati c spray coating

, flow coat

, dip coat (including electrodeposistion) and autophoretic

. While the inclusion in a nd of itself is not necessarily a major issue for the regulated community, we feel that they are not appropriate to list as they are not used . Fur ther,

we are concerned that the inclusion of these methods that are not employed in the metal pleasure craft industry would set a bad precedent for other states that may look to Maryland’s CTG as they adopt their

own . The ACA therefore suggest s that Maryla nd delete the above techniques from the CTG language.

While the rule correctly included application methods commonly found in the metal pleasure craft industry ( including HVLP and rollers ) there are few that were left out of the proposed CTG . We respectf ully request the inclusion of brush

, airless spray , and air assisted airless spray

– as well as HVLP and rollers

.
5. Affected S ources
The ACA urges Maryland to follow Connecticut ’s (a fellow OTC state) pleasure craft CTG, wh ich much like Maryland, has a large p leasure craft community. Connecticut adopted a standard that allows for averaging, in lieu of a strict 15lbs/day limit. Below is the language that was adopted in Connecticut. We believe, as Connecticut does, that with an averaging scheme Maryland w ill still attain reductions in VOC emissions while minimizing the negative impacts on the pleasure craft community

. (2) Applicability. (A) Except as provided in subdivision (3) of this subsection, the provisions of this subsection apply to the owner or op erator of any marina, boat yard, or other premises where pleasure craft coating is applied for commercial purposes at the direction of such owner or operator, if: (i) Such owner or operator was subject to subsection (s) of this section prior to January 1, 2013, or, (ii) Such owner or operator purchases for use in all pleasure craft coating and related cleaning at the pr emises 855 gallons or more of c o a tings and cleaning solvents in aggregate per 12

- month period.

As the Marine Trades Association of Maryland (MTAM) stated in their comments , which we endorse :

“ The business of preparing and painting yachts and other vessels at our members’ facilities is a highly competitive and short cycle environment. Due to the large number of boats that are launched in Maryland during the s pring season and the restraints of indoor storage and our cold regional winters, coatings application cannot occur at all times in the year. Coatings application occurs during a short 8

- 12 week period in the spring with a secondary season in October and No vember of about 4

- 5 weeks. In the spring, our members are averaging 15

- 20 boats per week and in the short fall season probably only about 5

- 8 boats per week. The major concern is not the aggregate of the 15 pounds per day VOC upper limit, but rather the da ily limit. MTAM would propose that a n averaging approach or yearly total be adopted ”

.

### 6. Fiberglass Boat CTG

It is our understan ding that Maryland intends to propose a separate rule making to address fiberglass boats. In our experience, Maryland is the first state to split the CTG into two. We strongly urge that the fiberglass boat provisions mirror the final metal boat CTG. If not, there would be major complications in having to manufacture two separate coatings lines as well as confusion to the customer.

Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ /s/

John Hopewell Marie Ho b s on Asst. Director, Environmental Affairs Counsel, Government Affairs

- Submitted Electronically

-ACA Comments on Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG

-

Modifications required to Pleasure Craft CTG for establishing a suitable RACT standard for the pleasure craft coatings industry

Summary The required changes to the Miscellaneous Metal and Plasti c Parts CTG to form a RACT standard for the pleasure craf t coatings industry are summariz ed in table 1.

Table 1

– Showing required changes by industry compared to limits in rule 1106.1 (changes indicated by red font) Coating Category CTG VOC content taken from South Coast rule 1106.1 (g/L) Industry VOC

Proposal for RACT (g/L)

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
Alumi num Substrate Antifoulant Coating 560 560 Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating 330 400 All other pleasure craft surface coatings for metal and plastic 420 420
Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat (new category) 420

* Revised definition required : E xtreme 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 perc ent 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.

The following sections prov ide more detail to substantiate proposed modifications

Revised VOC limit for Finish Primer/Surfacer category 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 flow out to give a smooth, glossy finish. In order to flow out and achieve such effects, products with a higher solvent content (lower soli ds content) are required for both the topcoats and the primers which go beneath them

Introducing high solids/low 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

### 2

surface that is obtained with currently available products. This would necessitate a change in working practice s in yards to overcome the increased health hazard associated with the increased dust levels.

An additional issue relating to a switch to lower VOC Finish/Primer surfacers is that the cost can be as much as 40% or more higher than currently available, hig her VOC 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 VOC 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 VOC levels of the Rule 1106.1 “Finish Primer/Surfacer” coating category to be revised from 420 g/L to 600 g/L

.

Revised VOC 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 si gnificant 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 t opcoats 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 VOC 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 a nd 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 VOC techn ologies available at this time do not provide the appearance and functionality required from a pleasure craft Extreme High Gloss Coating. Some low VOC 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 VOC is emitted.

An additional issue relating to a swi tch to lower VOC extreme high gloss topcoats is that the cost can be as much as 60% or more higher than currently available, higher VOC products. The resultant increase in scheme cost will make yards in areas where a VOC limit of 490g/lt is implemented unc ompetitive 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% of the overall VOC burden and less than 10% of tot al yacht coatings on an annualiz ed basis. Rule 1106.1 was developed to tackle serious ozone non

- attainment in South Coast AQMD in California. 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 VOC of some of the other coating categories and setting the VOC limit for Extreme High Gloss topcoats to 600 g/L , will provide the state with a balanced VOC reduction strategy that is appropriate to the chal lenge and that does not seriously impact the competitiveness of the industry. This VOC limit change should be permanent as industry does not foresee any new technology emerging that can offer a route to providing performance characteristics which are

acce ptable by the pleasure craft coating industry.

### 3

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 of the product at the point of application. To manage this variation it is suggested that the gloss level stated in the definition of the Extreme High Gloss Topcoats category be lowered slightly to read; “Extreme high gloss coating means any coati ng which achieves greater than 90 percent reflectance on a 60° meter when tested by ASTM Method D 523

- 89”

Revised VOC limit for Other Substrate s Antifoulant Coating Category Significant time and effort have been invested by industry to develop low VOC antifouling co atings suitable for use on pleasure craft. Low VOC/Zero VOC technology is constantly evolving and improving. The key is to set VOC 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 characteristics.

Formulations are currently registered with the EPA on the basis of the percentage weight of biocide in the wet paint. As the VOC is reduced then the solvent must be replaced with something non

- vol atile, 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 VOC imp act. It is also true that high solids/low VOC coatings tend to dry slower than their high VOC counterparts and this can impact the overall productivity of a yard for example. Similarly, water based technologies are not a panacea to the VOC challenge, thoug h water

- based technologies are bei ng very heavily scrutiniz ed 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 th in 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 standa rd solvent based controls.

VOC 328g/l std 460 g/l w/based 68g/l std 468 g/l 350 g/L

### 4

In addition, technologies for low VOC antifoulings often result in a rougher film. The roughness of the hull

c ontributes directly to drag which is seen as a particular issue in the case of racing yachts

The 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 Ma rine 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 set ting 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”

– amen d from 330g/L to 400g/L

A dditional Speciality Category and VOC Limit: Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat Rule 1106.1 is dated and there are more recent requirements for an additional category to reflect pleasure craft coatings of the modern day which are more env ironmentally friendly and/or compliant with International law.

A new category is required as a result of th e International Maritime Organiz ation Antifouling Systems convention (IMO AFS) and should be added to the categories taken from Rule 1106.1. This c onvention 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 wa ters of countries which are signatories to the convention is controlled according to the requirements of Annex 1 of the AFS. A specializ ed coating type is required to seal in old TBT containing antifoulings and to promote adhesion of biocide

- free, non

- sti ck foul release coatings when applied to vessels. The use of biocide

- free coatings brings significant environmental benefits.

The category should be named ‘ Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat ’ with a maximum VOC content of 420 g/L

. Antifouling Sealer Coat s and Tie Coats have been introduced into the market largely to facilitate compliance with Annex 1 of the IMO

- Antifouling Systems Convention (2001).

Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coats must contain a VOC up to 420 g/L in order to facilitate adequate penetratio n 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 form a flexible yet complete barrier over an u nderlying paint film. An appropriate definition for this type of coating would be...

“a coating applied over Biocidal antifouling coating for the purpose of preventing release of biocides into the environment and/or to promote adhesion between an antifouli ng and a primer or other antifoulings.”

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 c onsiderably 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 of the product attribute. For example, the definition of a High Gloss Topcoat refers specifical ly to the performance 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 terms of the formulation parameters (acid content and solids content) a nd the performance 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 zinc

- based etch

1 Rated as known carcinogens by Occupational Safety & Health Administ rator (OSHA), National Toxicology Program (NTP), and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

### 5

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 PR IMER means a coating which contains no mo re 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 fiber glass 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 (non

carcinogenic) 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 VOC 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

r ecoat the object of product. Thus the higher VOC materials actually reduce overall VOC emissions by allowing such repairs and touch ups to avoid complete overall or redo paint jobs.

### Appendix D

Maryland Department of the Environment ema il correspondence with stakeholders

### Randy Mosier - Fwd: RE: Pleasure Craft Coating stakeholder group

>>> Randy Mosier 12/ 9/2011 1:58 PM >>> Hi, John.

VOC limits are "as applied". The monthly average is base d on the number of days in the month (be it 30,31, 29, etc.).

I'll definitely keep the group post ed as the process continues.

Randy

>>> "Pazdera, John" <J ohn.Pazdera@akzonobel. com> 12/9/2011 9:36 AM >>>

Randy-

Thank you for this information. Further to Susa n’s e mail, could you please clarify the following for us:

• Are the VOC limits in the proposed rule “in the can” or “as applied”?

• For the proposed applicab ility threshold, is the mo nthly average based on a 30 day month, or is it some other number?

We would be interested to know the outcome of the AQCAC meeting on December 12 th – thank you for keeping us informed of the rule’s progress.

Have a good weekend!

Regards,

John

From: Randy Mosier [mailto:rm osier@mde.state.md.us] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:43 AM To: Susan Zellers Cc: Bob Brandon; Christopher Wheeling; David Darlin g; Debbie Rabin; Diane Franks; Frank Winkelman; Dunigan, George; Husain Waheed; Jo hn Hopewell; Pazdera, John; Jonath an Jones; Kathleen Perry; Marie Hobson; Nancy Booth; Nolan Penney; Pa ul DeSantis; S. Hamilton Chaney; Sc ott Tinkler; Seaside Boat Works; Thomas Dammrich Subject: RE: Pleasure Craft Coating stakeholder group

Hi, Susan. I was planning on sending out an email to the stakeholder group today, but I'll take this opportunity From: Randy Mosier To: Randy Mosier
Date: 12/9/2011 1:58 PM Subject: Fwd: RE: Pleasure Craft Coating stakeholder group 

### Pa g e 1 of 6

12/19/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\rmosier\Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4EE21417MD

...to respond to you and update the stakeholder group. See below for my responses to your questions. I've also attached the proposed regulation and fact sheet. We plan to take this re gulation to the Air Quality Control Advisory Council (AQCAC) on December 12 at MDE. Please also find attached the agenda for the meeting. Another public hearing will be scheduled following the AQCAC meeting if the regulation is approved by the Council. We will keep stakeholders informed.

Randy

Randy E. Mosier, Chief Regulations Development Division Maryland Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard, STE 730 Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1720 410.537.4488

>>> "Susan Zellers" <susan@m tam.org> 12/2/2011 2:37 PM >>>



### Hi Randy,

I wanted to check in with you to see if any additional meetings were necessary and just to see where we are with some of the questions we posed at the last meeting.

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

No additional meetings should be necessary. I believe we addressed the comments we received through the stakeholder process and have made additional amendments to the regulation as a result. No additional
comments or supporting information was received by MDE from stakeholders.

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

Our questions at the last meeting were: 1) Regarding whether the compliance date could be pushed back to the end of the next boating season
– as I understand it that was a question you were going to need to pose to the EPA.

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

Under the proposed regulation we have set the compliance date to January 1, 2013.

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

2) The question of allowing an aggregate standard

– based on a month or even a week. The yards do not typically open paint on Saturday or Sunday, therefore the allowing 450 pounds a month or 105 pounds per week would offer some relief. I think that was also a question for the EPA.

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

Under the proposed regulation we have set the Applicability determination to 15 pounds or more per day of VOC on a monthly average.

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

### Pa g e 2 of 6

12/19/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\rmosier\Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4EE21417MD

...

### 3) For the question of leased property. There are some marinas that don’t order paint and don’t use paint but perhaps they rent space to one or several businesses that do. How are they to be counted? I think your AG

was working on that question.

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

I believe the safest way to proceed (for now) would be to assume that all coating operations performed at a marina would fall under the marina's purview for determining applicability and for compliance purposes. We will continue to look into this and could possibly hold another stakeholder meeting in the future to provide

more guidance in this area as needed.

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

Finally, there is still misunderstanding on what happens after 15 lbs per day applicability threshold. Your ‘draft Facts About’ says: “15 pounds per day of VOC emissions is not an emission limit for affected facilities. An affected facility subject to the regulation m ay service as many pleasure craft as they are capable of, however, they will need to meet the coating standards and other requirements of the regulation.”

I think that means:

• A business must look at all paint, coatings, cleaning products used in a day and add up the amount of lbs of VOC in each gallon.

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

Yes, for the purposes of determining whether the facility meets the Applicability threshold and if so would then need to meet the requirements of the regulation. Though as now proposed, the 15 pounds per day would be averaged over the period of a month.

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

• If the business uses more than 15 lbs of VOC in a day then the need to ‘meet the standards and requirements of the regulation’

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

Yes. Again though, VOC emissions of 15 pounds or more per day from coating operations as determined on a monthly average.

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

• Those standards and requirements demand that the business use only the coating types outlined in the table: example

– Extreme High Gloss Topcoat with 5.0 lbs of VOC per gallon. They can open as many of those as they want in a day.

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

### Pa g e 3 of 6

12/19/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\rmosier\Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4EE21417MD

...

### Correct, though of course the additional requirements of the regulation would apply such as how the coatings are applied and maintaining records for compliance determination.

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

• A business can still open non

‐ compliant paints

– but only to total 15 lbs/day.

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

No. If a business ever goes beyond the applicability threshold of actual VOC emissions of 15 pounds or more per day from coating operations as determined on a monthly average, then that business is subject to the regulation and may only use compliant coatings that meet the standards as specified in COMAR 26.11.19.27

‐ 1(D). Businesses subject to the regulation may coat as many boats as they can service, however, they must

use compliant coatings.

Small businesses that do not exceed the applicability threshold are not subject to the regulation and may continue to use non ‐ compliant coatings.

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

Thank you Randy, for your patience in working with our group. I will look forward to your reply.

Susan Zellers Executive Director Marine Trades Association of Maryland 410

‐ 269

‐ 0741 office susan@mtam.org www.mtam.org



## Like this page:

iboatMD Facebook Page

From: Randy Mosier [mailto:rm osier@mde.state.md.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 10:51 AM To: Randy Mosier Subject: Pleasure Craft Coating stakeholder group 

### Pa g e 4 of 6

12/19/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\rmosier\Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4EE21417MD

...Dear Stakeholders,

Thank you for taking the time to meet with the Depa rtment on November 1, 2011 regarding MDE's Pleasure Craft coating regulation. Receiving constructive input from affected sources and indust ry associations provides us with a much greater perspective and leads towards th e development of better regula tions for all involved. We have passed along to EPA an overview of the issues an d concerns raised at the stakeholder meeting and are awaiting their decision on several items. Primarily, we have asked for EPA's input regarding applicability and a deferred compliance date.

At the meeting we had asked stakeholde rs to provide more information on the economic costs associated with this regulation as it would impact affected sources. Costs associated with the price difference comparing compliant and non-compliant products. "Average daily pr oduct usage" at an "average marina". Number of pleasure craft serviced at an "average marina" during peak season. The amount of coatings typically held in stock at a "average marina". MDE had even asked stak eholders to provide suggested draft language on how they would like the Economic Impact sections of the Fact Sheet to read. We currently understand some of the information specific to coating op erations at marinas to be:

"Coatings application occurs during a short 8-12 week peri od in the spring with a secondary season in October and November of about 4-5 weeks. A typical average outp ut for spring season is 15- 20 boats per week, and in the short fall season approx imately 5-8 boats per week."

The Department would appreciate industry input on thes e figures to help support any potential amendments to the regulation.

The Department had also requested that stakeholders provide information regarding any manufacturer of fiber g lass boats. MDE needs to determine whether these sources are meetin g the applicability of EPA's fiber g lass boat manufacturing CTG. Having a head start on this pr ocess will better allow MDE to potentially integrate the requirements of the fiberglass boat manufacturing CTG an d the pleasure craft coating CTG, where applicable, to attempt to minimize confusion th roughout the affected industry.

Please pass along any information you have been able to gather by Thursday, November 17. Thank you all so much for your assistance.

Sincerely, Randy Mosier

Randy E. Mosier, Chief Regulations Development Division Maryland Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard, STE 730 Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1720 410.537.4488

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or co pying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communicati on in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any c opy of it from your computer system. Thank You 

### Pa g e 5 of 6

12/19/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\rmosier\Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4EE21417MD

...The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or co pying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communicati on in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any c opy of it from your computer system. Thank You 

### Pa g e 6 of 6

12/19/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\rmosier\Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4EE21417MD

...FINAL ACTION ON REGULATIONS

1430

MARYLAND REGISTER, VOLUME 39, ISSUE 22, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2012



# Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE EN VIRONMENT
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 Final Action [12

- 137

- F] On October 22, 2012, the Secretary of the Environment adopted new Regulation .27

- 1 under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes

. This action, which was proposed for adoption in 39:12 Md. R. 756

— 758 (June 15, 2012), has been adopted as proposed. Effective Date: November 12, 2012.
ROBERT M. SUMMERS, Ph.D. Secretary of the Environment


# Title 31 MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION

Subtitle 16 MISCELLEANOUS 31.16.10 Complaint Investigation and Determination Process

Authori ty: Insurance Article, §2

- 109(a); Health

- General Article, §19

-

705(a)(2); Annotated Code of Maryland

Notice of Final Action [12

- 225

- F] On October 16, 2012, the Insurance Commissioner adopted new regulations .01

— .09 under a new chapter, COMAR 31.16.10 Comp laint Investigation and Determination Process . This action, which was proposed for adoption in 39:17 Md. R. 1173

— 1175 (August 24, 2012), has been adopted as proposed. Effective Date: November 12, 2012.

THERESE M. GOLDSMITH Insurance CommissionerPROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS

756

MARYLAND REGISTER, VOLUME 39, ISSUE 12 , FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 2012

Economic Impact on Small Businesses The proposed action has minimal or no economic impact on smal l 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 pol lutants that contribute to disease.

Opportunity for Public Comment The Department of the Environment will hold a public hearing on the proposed action on July 18, 2012, at 10 a.m. at the Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, 1st Floor C onference Rooms, 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, 1 800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 730, Baltimore, Maryland 21230

- 1720, or emailed to drabin@mde.state.md.us. Comments must be received not later than July 18, 2012, or be submitted at the hearing. For more information, call Deborah Rabin at (410) 537

- 3240. C opies 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 office s; 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 th e Department through the Maryland Relay Service at 1

- 800

- 735

- 2258.

.03 Ambient Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Reference Conditions, and Methods of Measurement. For the purposes of this chapter, the ambient air quality standards, definitions, referenc e conditions, and methods of measurement are those specified in 40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58, [ 2003 Edition ] as amended

. ROBERT M. SUMMERS, Ph.D

. Acting 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

[12

- 137

- P] The Secretary o f the Environment proposes to adopt new Regulation .27

- 1 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 EPA ‘ s Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts which include controls for pleasure craft coating operations. EPA develops CTGs as guidance on control requirements for source categories. States can follow the CTGs or adopt more restrictive standards. MDE propos es to adopt new standards and requirements that have been developed in coordination with EPA and trade associations representing the pleasure craft industry. The proposed regulation will be submitted to the U.S. EPA for approval as a revision to Maryland ‘ s State Implementation Plan.

Background EPA developed the Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings after reviewing the 1978 CTG, the 1988 NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines (40 CFR 60 Su bpart TTT), the 1994 ACT for Surface Coating of Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 40 CFR 63 Subpart MMMM, and existing State and local VOC emission reduction approaches. The 1994 ACT provided analysis and options for alternative control technologies available for VOC emissions from the surface coating of plastic parts in the automotive and other transportation equipment and busines s machine industries without any recommendations for standards. The miscellaneous metal and plastic parts category includes pleasure crafts (recreational boats) along with components that are used in fabricated metal products, small and large farm machine ry, commercial and industrial machinery and equipment, automotive or transportation equipment, interior or exterior automotive parts, construction equipment, motor vehicle accessories, bicycles and sporting goods, toys, recreational vehicles, extruded alum inum components, railroad cars, heavier vehicles, lawn and garden equipment, business machines, laboratory and medical equipment, electronic equipment, and other industrial and household products. The pleasure craft coating category does not include coati ngs that are a part of other product categories listed under Section 183(e) of the Act for which CTGs have been published or included in other CTGs. The Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing CTG is a separate category and the standards and requirements pertaining to the manufacturing process are not included in this regulation. Despite the fact that California has implemented standards for pleasure craft coating operations for several categories of coatings and that EPA had originally published more restrictive st andards, the standards have undergone revisions based on reviews of industry practices and capabilities and product performance. The pleasure craft industry found the standards for four categories to be technologically infeasible, considering the performan ce requirements of the coatings. EPA reviewed the information and data from industry and determined that states could consider alternative standards as proposed in the recommendation of the industry for the following coatings: Finish Primer/Surfacer; Antif ouling Sealer/Tiecoat; Other Substrate Antifoulant; and Extreme High Gloss. The proposed regulation incorporates the original recommendations of the industry and also includes changes requested through the stakeholder and public hearing process that have b een approved by EPA.

Affected Sources The proposed regulation affects pleasure craft and fiberglass boat coating operations at a premises with actual VOC emissions of 15 pounds or more per day from coating operations as determined on a monthly average. 1 5 pounds or more per day from coating operations as determined on a monthly average is the applicability threshold that determines whether a facility needs to meet the standards and requirements of the proposed regulation. 15 pounds or more per day from c oating operations as determined on a monthly average is not an emission limit for affected facilities. An affected facility subject to the regulation may service as many pleasure craft as they are capable of, however, they will need to meet the coating sta ndards and other requirements of the regulation. The compliance date for the regulation is January 1, 2013.PROPOSED ACTION ON REGU LATIONS 757

MARYLAND REGISTER, VOLUME 39, ISSUE 12 , FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 2012 Requirements This regulation requires the affected sources to meet specific coating standards for the coating and maintenance of pleasure craft and fiberglass boats. There are also requirements established for application methods of coatings and emission controls for cleaning materials. Affected sources are also required to maintain records on coating products purchased for compliance determination. 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 r equires that coatings can only be applied by coating applicators such as: Electrostatic application; HVLP spray; Flow coat; Roller coat; Dip coat including electrodeposition; Brush coat; Airless spray; Air assisted airless spray; or other coating applicati on method capable of achieving a transfer efficiency equivalent or better than that achieved by HVLP spraying. Powder coatings can be applied through electrostatic spraying or dipping. Cleaning activities other than surface preparation also occur at facili ties engaged in pleasure craft coating operations. 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 established in the CTG.

Expected Emissions Reductions The proposed regulation sets standards for coatings, application methods and work practices. Emissions of VOCs from pleasure craft coating operations are expected to be reduced by 35 percent nationally. The maximum benefit will be provided during the ozon e season when VOCs readily combine with NO x to 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. EPA estimated the economic impact of this regulation on a national level. Cost effectiveness is approximately $1,800/ton of VOC controlled. The standards and requirements of the CTG have already been implem ented in other states and as a result cost of production of compliant coatings has come down from initial phase of implementation. As the CTGs are implemented nationally, the costs of compliant coatings are expected to be reduced further.

Revenue (R+/R

- ) II. Types of Economic Impact. Expenditure (E+/E

- ) Magnitude

A. On issuing agency: NONE B. On other State agencies: NONE C. On local governments: NONE Benefit (+) Cost (

- ) Magnitude

D. On regulated industries or trad e groups: (

- ) Unable to estimate
E. On other industries or trade groups: NONE
F. Direct and indirect effects on public: NONE III. Assumptions. (Identified by Impact Letter and Number from Section II.) D. Cost effectiveness is approximately $1,800/ton of VOC controlled.
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 pr oposed action on July 18, 2012, at 10 a.m. at the Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, 1st Floor Conference Rooms, Baltimore, Maryland 21230

- 1720. Interested persons are invited to attend and express their views. Comments may be sent t o 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 July 18, 2012, 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 Manageme nt 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.

.27

- 1 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Pleasure Craft Coatin g Operations. A. Applicability and Exemptions

. (1) Th e requirements of this regulation app ly to pleasure craft and fiberglass boat coating operations at a premises with actual VOC emissions of 15 pounds or more per day from coating operations as determine d on a monthly average, on or after January 1, 2013

. ( 2 ) The requirements of this regulation do not apply to: (a) Coatings applied using a hand

- held, pressurized, nonrefillable container which expels coatings from the container in a finely divided spray wh en a valve on the container is depressed; (b) C oatings that are applied to: (i) Recoat portions of a product which has sustained mechanical damage to the coating following normal painting operation; orPROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS

758

MARYLAND REGISTER, VOLUME 39, ISSUE 12 , FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 2012

(ii) Cover minor coating imperfections appearing a fte r the main coating operation; or (c) Coatings or resins applied during the manufacturing
process. B. Definitions. (1) In this regulation, the following te rms have the meanings indicated. (2) Terms Define. (a) “ Antifouling s ealer/

t iecoat ” means a coating a pplied over a biocidal antifouling coating for the purpose of preventing the release of biocides into the environment or to promote adhesion between an existing antifouling coating and a primer or between an existing antifouling coating and other antifouli ng coatings. (b) “ Extreme high gloss coating ” means any coating which achieves at least 95 percent reflectance on a 60o meter when tested by ASTM Method D 523

- 89. (c) “ Fiberglass boat ” means any type of vessel, other than a seaplane, that can be used for transportation on the water, in which either the hull or deck is built from a composite material consisting of a polyester resin or other thermosetting resin matrix reinforced with fiberglass (glass fibers), inert filler

, or other reinforcing materials

suc h as fibers of carbon, aramid, or other material. (d) “ Finish primer/surfacer ” means a coating applied with a wet film thickness of less than 10 mils prior to the application of a topcoat for purposes of providing corrosion resistance, adhesion of subseque nt coatings, or a moisture barrier, or promotin g a uniform surface necessary for filling in surface imperfections. (e) “ High build primer/surfacer ” means a coating applied with a wet film thickness of 10 mils or more prior to the application of a topcoat f

or purposes of providing corrosion resistance, adhesion of subsequent coatings, or a moisture barrier, or promoting a uniform surface necessary for filling in surface imperfections. (f) “ Pleasure c raft ” means vessels which are manufactured or operated prim arily for recreational purposes, or leased, rented, or chartered to a person or business for recreational purposes. (g) “ Pleasure craft coating ” means any parts and products coating, except unsaturated polyester resin (fiberglass) coatings, applied by brus h, spray, roller, or other means to a pleasure craft. (h) “ Pre t reatment w ash p rimer ” 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 direct ly to fiberglass and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent coatings. ( 3 ) All definitions provided in COMAR 26.11.19.27B also apply in this regulatio n except for those definitions specifically provided in §B (2) of this re gulation

. C. Incorporation by Reference. The document ASTM Designation: ASTM Method D 523

- 89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss, which is incorporated by reference in COMAR 26.11.33.02B, shall be followed when complying with this regulation. D

. Plea sure Craft Coating Standards ( E xpressed in T

erms of M

ass of VOC per V

olume of C oating E

xcluding W

ater and E

xempt C ompounds, as A

pplied). Coating Types lbs VOC/gal kg

VOC/liter Extreme high gloss topcoat 5.0 0.60 High gloss topcoat 3.5 0.42 Pretreatme nt wash primers 6.5 0.78 Finish primer/surfacer Applicable through March 31, 2014 5.0 0.60 Applicable after March 31, 2014 3.5 0.42 High build primer/surfacer 2.8 0.34 Aluminum substrate antifoulant coating 4.7 0.56

Antifouling sealer/tiec oat 3.5 0.42 Other s ubstrate antifoulant coating 3.3 0.40 All other pleasure craft surface coatings 3.5 0.42

E . If more than one emission limitation in § D of this regulation applies to a specific coating, the least stringent emission limitation is
app licable. F . Application Methods. A person subject to the requirements of this regulation shall use the following application methods , except for the application of Extreme high gloss coating : (1) Electrostatic application; (2) HVLP spray; (3) Flow coat; ( 4) Roller coat; (5) Dip coat including electrodeposition; (6) Brush coat; (7) Airless spray; (8) Air

- assisted airless spray; or ( 9 ) Other coating application method capable of achieving a transfer efficiency equivalent or better than that achieved by HVLP spraying.
ROBERT M. SUMMERS, Ph.D. Secretary of the EnvironmentMarlin 0 'Malley Govemor 

## Maryland 

# Department of Planning

Antho'!J G. Brown Lt. Govemor

Ms. Deborah Rabin May 22,2012

Regulations Coordinator, Air & Radiation Management Administration Maryland Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 730 Baltimore, MD 21230

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REYIEW PROCESS

State Application Identifier: MD20120514-0338 Rkhard Eberharl Hall Secretat)' Matthe1v]. Pmver Dep11ty Secretary

Project Description: Notice of Public Hearings to be held on July 18, 2012 regarding amendments to COMAR 26.11.04; new regulation CO MAR 26.11.19.27-1; and removal of two 1979 Consent Orders from the Maryland State Implementation Plan Project Location: Maryland Clearinghouse Contact: Bob Rosenbush

Dear Ms. Rabin:

Thank you for submitting your project for intergovernmental review. Participation in the Maryland Intergovernmental Review and Coordination (MIRC) process helps ensure project consistency with plans, programs, and objectives of State agencies and local governments

.

Notice of your application is being provided to State and local public officials through the llltergovemmelltal Mo11itor, which is a database of projects received by the State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Assistance

. This information may be viewed at http: // planning.maryland.gov / emircpublic /

. The project has been assigned a unique State Application Identifier that should be used on all documents and correspondence

.

All MIRC requirements have been met in accordance with Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR 34

. 02.0 1.04-.06) and this concludes the review process for the above referenced project. If you need assistance or have questions, contact the State Clearinghouse staff person noted above at 410-767-4490 or through e-mail at brosenbush@mdp.state.md.us. Thank you for
your cooperation with the MIRC process.

Sincerely,

# ~c.~~ Linda C. Janey, J

. D

. , Assistant Secretary

P

. S. Great News!! Your project may be eligible to be " FastTracked" through the State permitting processes

. For more information, go to : http :// easy

. maryland.gov / wordpress l fa s ttrackl

.

LCJ : BR

cc : Kathleen Blinebury

- E PA

I 2

- 0338

_ NM.NEWdoc

301 W t st Pmton Street • Suite 1101 • Ba l timore, Mary la nd 2 1 2 01

- 2 305 Telephone : 410

. 6

. 4500 • Fax : 410

. 6 7

. 4480 • To// Fre e: 1

. 8 77.7 6 7. 6 27

2 • TTY Users : Maryland 

### Rei£!Y lntemet : Plan11ing.Mary/afl(/.gov

### 1

1 

### MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

2 

### AIR AND RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION

3

4



### 5 

### PUBLIC HEARING

6

7 

### CONCERNING PROPOSED NEW COMAR 26.11.19.27-1

8 

### CONCERNING CTG REQUIREMENTS FOR

9 

### PLEASURE CRAFT COATING OPERATIONS

10

11



### 12 The hearing in the above matter commenced on

13 Wednesday, July 18, 2012, at the MDE Headquarters,

14 Montgomery Park, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Baltimore,

15 Maryland.

16

17 BEFORE: DEBORAH RABIN, Hearing Officer

18

19 Reported by: Linda Metcalf

20

21



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-55552

1 

### A P P E A R A N C E S

2



### 3 ON BEHALF OF THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT:

4 

### DEBORAH RABIN

5 Regulations Coordinator

6 

### Regulation Development Division

7 

### Maryland Department of the Environment

8 

### 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 730

9 

### Baltimore, Maryland 21230

10

11



### 12 

### HUSAIN WAHEED

13 Public Health Engineer

14 Regulation Development Division

15 Air and Radiation Management

16 Maryland Department of the Environment

17 1800 Washington Boulevard

18 Baltimore, Maryland 21230

19

20

21



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-5555

### 3

1 

### I N D E X

2



### 3 

### Speaker: Page:

4 

### Deborah Rabin, MOE 4



### 5 

### Husain Waheed, MOE 5

6 

### George Dunigan, International Paint 9

7 

### Steven Unthoff 11

8

9



### 10

11



### 12

13



### 14

15

16



### 17

18

19

20



### 21



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-55554

1 

### P R 0 C 

### E E D I 

### N G S

2



### 3 

### MS. RABIN: Good morning. On behalf of the

4 

### Department of the Environment and the Air and Radiation

5 

### Management Administration, we would like to welcome you

6 

### to this public hearing.

7 

### My name is Deborah Rabin and I am the

8 

### Regulations Coordinator for the Air and Radiation

9 

### Management Administration. I will serve as hearing

10 officer for today's hearing.

11 

### I would like to ask all of you in attendance

12 today to please sign in, if you haven't already done so.



### 13 This will help us to keep an accurate record of the

14 people who participate in the hearing. Also, copies of

15 our regulation proposal, support documents, and the

16 Department's statement are available on the table for

17 your information.

18 This hearing concerns Air Quality Regulations

19 found in the Code of Maryland Regulations, Title 26,

20 Subtitle 11, Air Quality. The Secretary of the

21 Department proposes to adopt new Regulation .27-1 under



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-5555

### 5

1 

### COMAR 26.11.19, Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific

2 

### Processes.

3 

### The purpose of this hearing is to give you the

4 

### opportunity to comment on this action.

5 

### The Opportunity for Public Comment for this

6 

### proposed action appeared in the Maryland Register, Volume

7 

### 39, Issue 12, Page 757 on June 15, 2012.

8 

### The hearing will proceed in the following

9 

### order. First, Mr. Husain Waheed will make a statement on

10 behalf of the Air and Radiation Management

11 

### Administration. After Mr. Waheed is finished, I will

12 call on any elected official or government official who

13 wants to make a statement. Then, I will call upon anyone

14 else who indicated on the sign-in sheet that he or she

15 would like to make a statement.

16 When giving your statement, please identify

17 yourself and your affiliation, and give your statement

18 loudly and clearly. Are there any questions?

19 I will now call on Mr. Waheed.

20 MR. WAHEED: My name is Husain Waheed. I am a

21 Senior Regulatory and Compliance Engineer with the



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-5555

### 6



### 1 

### Regulation Development Division of the Air and Radiation

2 

### Management Administration, Department of the Environment.

3 

### This public hearing is being held pursuant to

4 

### the requirements of 40 CFR Section 51.102 and Sections 2-

5 

### 301 et. seq. of the Environment Article, Annotated Code

6 

### of Maryland. It is also being held in conformance with

7 

### the State Administrative Procedures Act under the State

8 

### Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101.

9 

### Notice of this hearing appeared in the:

10 Maryland Register on June 15, 2012; MOE's website from

11 

### May 12, 2012 through July 18, 2012; Baltimore Sun on June

12 15, 2012; Washington Post on June 14, 2012; Frederick

13 News-Post on June 15, 2012; Saint Mary's Enterprise on

14 June 15, 2012; Salisbury Daily Times on June 15, 2012;

15 and the Cecil Whig on June 15, 2012.



### 16 Copies of these notices were submitted for the

17 record.

18 Copies of the proposed action and supporting



### 19 documents were submitted for review to the State

20 Clearinghouse and are also submitted at this time into

21 the hearing record. Copies were also made available for



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-55557

1 

### public inspection at the Air and Radiation Management

2 

### Administration offices in Baltimore, Cumberland, and

3 

### Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local

4 

### air quality control offices.

5 

### The purpose of today's hearing is to give the

6 

### public an opportunity to comment on the proposed

7 

### regulation .27-1 under COMAR 26.11.19.

8 

### Summary

9 

### The requirements of this regulation apply to

10 pleasure craft and fiberglass boat coating operations at

11 

### a premises with actual VOC emissions of 15 pounds or more

12 per day from coating operations as determined on a

13 monthly average, on or after January 1, 2013.

14 The proposed regulation sets standards for the

15 following coatings: 1. Extreme High Gloss Topcoat; 2.

16 High Gloss Topcoat; 3. Finish Primer/Surfacer; 4. High

17 Build Primer/Surfacer; 5. Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant

18 Coating; 6. Antifouling Sealer/Tiecoat; 7. Other

19 Substrate Antifoulant Coating; and 8. All Other Coatings.

20 Application methods for coatings are limited

21 to: 1. Electrostatic application; 2. HVLP spray; 3. Flow



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-55558

1 

### coat; 4. Roller coat; 5. Dip coat including

2 

### electrodeposition; 6. Brush coat; or 7. Airless spray; 8.

3 

### Air-assisted airless spray; or 9. Other coating

4 

### application method capable of achieving a transfer

5 

### efficiency equivalent or better than that achieved by

6 

### HVLP spraying.

7 

### The work practice requirements establish

8 

### standards for the usage of all VOC containing materials.

9 

### Maryland's State Implementation Plan (SIP)



### 10 These amendments will be submitted to the EPA

11 

### for approval as part of the SIP.

12 Consideration of Comments



### 13 The Department will consider all comments



### 14 before making a decision to adopt these

15 amendments.

16 MS. RABIN: Would anyone like to comment on

17 this proposed action?

18 MR. DUNIGAN: I would.

19 MS. RABIN: Okay, and your name, please, and

20 organization.

21 MR. DUNIGAN: My name is George Dunigan. I



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-55559



### 1 

### represent International Paint, the All-Grip and Interlux

2 

### Division, and I also represent the Marine Trades

3 

### Association of Maryland.

4 

### Am I ready to go? Should I just keep talking?

5 

### MS. RABIN: Yes, sure. Thank you very much.

6 

### MR. DUNIGAN: There's four points I'd like the

7 

### group to consider in the proposal here. Number one would

8 

### be sell-off of old inventory for yards, ship storage

9 

### facilities that are going to have to use VOC-compliant

10 product. I would like at least one year to sell off

11 

### their old inventory without being penalized or having to

12 discard it and lose dollars or lose their money on the

13 product. That's point number one.

14 Point number two I'd like them to reconsider

15 the 15 pounds per day average over a 30-day or a month

16 period. And I'm not sure if I said that correctly, but

17 you know what I mean. Other areas of the country,

18 

### specifically New England, have a 15 pounds per day



### 19 average out over a 365-day range. I'd like to stay in

20 consistency with the other regions of the EPA. So,

21 that's point number two.



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-5555

### 10

1 

### The execution date of this regulation is

2 

### January 1st, 2013. Because of the nature of our business

3 

### and the difficulty in changing equipment and spray

4 

### techniques and the learning curve on new products, I

5 

### would ask that the push the date be pushed back to

6 

### June 1st, 2013, to give us enough time to retrain,

7 

### reeducate and resupply our customers.

8 

### And the fourth and my final point is in regards

9 

### to the locations of business. If I say this correctly,

10 the landowner who pays the property taxes determines

11 

### whether they're VOC-compliant or not based on the amount

12 of product used. In some cases, there are renters or

13 leased businesses on the same property who will fall

14 below the 15 pounds average per day over a 30-day or

15 monthly period.

16 It puts a burden on these businesses to use

17 compliant products when they fall below the regulation.

18 They are separate businesses and they pay separate taxes



### 19 and are separate entities. And I think they should be

20 considered as a separate unit and whether you call them

21 inspected that way or I'm not sure what the language



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-555511

1 

### would be

-- the correct language would be, but they

2 

### should be considered a separate unit and be able to

3 

### comply with VOC products if necessary or be able to use

4 

### the current products if they fall below the monthly

5 

### average. That concludes my four points.

6 

### MS. RABIN: Okay.

7 

### MR. DUNIGAN: Thank you.

8 

### MR. RABIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Dunigan.

9 

### Would anyone else like to comment on this

10 action?

11 

### MR. UNTHOFF: Yeah. My name is Steven Unthoff.

12 I own Annapolis Gel Coat and Fiberglass Repair. And

13 forgive me, I'm not accustomed to the hearings and that

14 sort of stuff too much, so, you know, there's been a lot

15 of

-- a lot of talk back and forth on what complies and

16 what doesn't comply and how boatyards are going to be

17 handling this.

18 You know, our company is based in one boatyard and

19 we travel through a significant number of yards working

20 for the boat-owners. You know, very rarely do we

21 actually work for the boatyards. And the biggest problem



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-5555

### 12

1 

### that I see with this 15 pounds per day limit, you know,

2 

### over a 30-day period is that most boatyards have

3 

### basically told me that they're not going to allow us to

4 

### come into their yard and use their VOCs. It's pretty

5 

### clear they're going to shut us down. So, this is going

6 

### to put us out of business is what it boils down to.

7 

### Eighty-five percent of my work is done on a

8 

### mobile basis, and, you know, it's you know, I read in

9 

### one of the reports that there was an economic impact of

10 zero to our industry, which is definitely not correct.

11 Even for me to

-- as our business grows to stay in

12 compliance and try to continue our operations, it's going



### 13 to cost us tens of thousands of dollars in equipment and

14 changes and that sort of thing in order to help us even

15 try to comply with some of the regulations. You know,



### 16 you know, financially, we can't afford that, especially

17 in the economic times that we're dealing with now and our

18 industry.

19 So, you know, the simple basis is, you know, if

20 this is the regulations that are going to, you know, go

21 into effect, it's more or less the same thing that



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-5555

### 13

1 

### happened to California seven years ago, and a significant

2 

### number of companies, marine repair businesses, went out

3 

### of business.

4 

### And, you know, I don't have 100 percent facts

5 

### and everything else. This is from discussion with other

6 

### boatyards and people from California and that sort of

7 

### thing. You know, so I'll basically end with, you know,

8 

### you know, these are pretty significant changes to our

9 

### industry, and it's happening very quickly. And we all

10 need time to be able to, you know, mold our businesses

11 around the regulation and try to

-- try to conform with

12 it. Thank you.

13 MS. RABIN: Thank you very much for your

14 comments. Would anyone else like to comment on this

15 action?

16 (No response.)



### 17 MS. RABIN: Okay, thank you very much for your



### 18 comments. Please let the record show that no other

19 comments have been provided. This will conclude the



### 20 public hearing regarding proposed new Regulation .27-1

21 under COMAR 26.11.19, Volatile Organic Compounds from



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-5555

### 14

1 Specific Processes.

2 Let the record show that it is now 10:24 and

3 this hearing is officially concluded.



### 4 (Whereupon, the hearing was concluded.)

5

6



### 7

8

9



### 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-5555

### 15

1 

### CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER

2



### 3 

### I, Linda Metcalf, do hereby certify that the

4 

### foregoing transcription was reduced to typewriting via

5 

### audiotapes recorded by me; that I am neither counsel for,

6 

### nor related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the

7 

### case in which these proceedings were transcribed; that I

8 

### am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel

9 

### employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or



### 10 otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.

11

12

13

14

15 

## D
16 LINDA METCALF

17 Court Reporter

18



### 19

20

21



### For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025- www.ftrinc.net- (800) 921-5555

# MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard • Baltimore MD 21230 410-537-3000 • 1-800-633-6101

Robert M. Summers, Ph.D



### . Secretary

Recycled Paper 

### www.mde.state.md.us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258 Via Maryland Re lay Service Martin O’Malley Governor
Anthony G. Brown Lieutenant Governor



### May 11, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION

This is to ce rtify that the “Mar yland Department of the Environmen t (MDE) Notice of Public Hearings Concerning Proposed Amendments to Air Quality Regulations and Revisions to Maryland’s State Implementation Plan ” was published on MDE’s web site on May 11, 2012. It will remain posted on the site until July 18, 2012. The notice in full with links to supporting documents may be found in the following web address:

http://www.mde.state.md.us/AboutMDE/pages/reqcomments.aspx

Web publication of the notice was at the request of Deborah Rabin, Regula tions Coordinator of the Air and Radiation Management Ad ministration of MDE.

By:

DIANA ALEGRE MDE Webmaster

Attachments:

Copy of web page as published.MDE Request for Comments

http://www.mde.state.md.us/aboutmde/AboutMDEHome/Pages/aboutmde/reqcomments.aspx[5/11/2012 11:44:27 AM] Sign In

MDE

Contact Us
Directions to MDE
MDE Locations

MDE Calendar
MDEStat
Grants and

Financial Assistance
Featured Staff
MDE Fiscal Analysis Project Hearings, Meetings & Request for Comments
Work with MDE
About MDE Home MDE Public Meetings, Hearings and Request for Comments

MDE Calendar
The complete listing of MDE public meetings and hearings is posted in the MDE Calendar

. Please call or email contact person cited in the meeting details for any questions or to send a comment.

N otice of Public Hearings Concerning Proposed Amendments to Air Quality Regulations and Revisions to Maryland's State Implementation Plan
The Maryland Department of the Environment gives notice of public hearings concerning the following actions:

1. Proposal to amend Regulation .03 and repeal Regulations .04 - .09 under COMAR 26.11.04 Ambient Air Quality Standards. The purpose of this action is to adopt the following revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as required by Section 2-302 (c) of the Environment Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland: the 2006 revised NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) and update the definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58. the 2010 revised NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and update the definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50, 53 and 58. the 2008 NAAQS for ground-level ozone (O3) and update the definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58. the 2010 revised NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and update the definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58. the 2008 NAAQS for lead (Pb) and update the definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 53 and 58. In this regulatory action the NAAQS are being incorporated by reference prospectively in order for Maryland’s ambient air quality standards to be identical to the federal standards at all times.
( Technical Support Document )
This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as part of Maryland's State Implementation Plan.

2. Proposal to adopt new Regulation .27-1 under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes. The purpose of this action is to adopt the requirements of the EPA’s Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts which include controls for pleasure craft coating operations. 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 new standards and requirements that have been developed in coordination with EPA and trade associations representing the pleasure craft industry.
( Technical Support Document )
This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as part of Maryland's State Implementation Plan.

3. Proposal to remove the Board of Education of Allegheny County's 1979 Consent Order from the State Implementation Plan. The coal-fired boiler located at Beall High School has been demolished along with the entire school. The Department issued a construction permit for a 15.5 million BTU per hour coal fired boiler on February 6, 1979.
( Fact Sheet ) ( Consent Order )
This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as a revision to Maryland's State Implementation Plan.

4. Proposal to remove the Saint Mary's College 1979 Consent Order from the State Implementation Plan. The coal-fired F. Keeler Company Boiler has been modified by removing the coal firing capability and converting the boiler to mainly fire natural gas with No. 2 fuel oil backup. The Department issued a construction permit for this modification on July 18, 2000.
( Fact Sheet ) ( Permit Application ) ( Permit Modification ) ( Consent Order )
This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as a revision to Maryland's State Implementation Plan.
The full text of the proposed amendments and new regulation listed under #1 and #2 will appear in the Maryland Register at http://www.dsd.state.md.us/mdregister on June 15, 2012.
Public hearings on the four (4) proposed actions listed above will be held on July 18, 2012 at 10 a.m. at the Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, 1st Floor Conference Rooms, Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1720.
The proposed actions and supporting documents are also 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.
Interested persons are invited to attend and express their views. Comments may be mailed 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, or faxed to (410) 537-4223. Comments must be received not later than July 18, 2012 , or be submitted at the hearing. For more information, call Deborah Rabin at (410) 537-3240.
Anyone needing special accommodations at a 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.

Response to Comments for Selected Public Hearings Problem Solver | Maryland.gov | Online Services | State Agencies | Phone Directory

email friend print page HOME MARYLANDER BUSINESS RESEARCH CENTER NEWSROOMMDE Request for Comments

http://www.mde.state.md.us/aboutmde/AboutMDEHome/Pages/aboutmde/reqcomments.aspx[5/11/2012 11:44:27 AM] Response to comments for the public hearing held on July 11, 2011 for COMAR 26.11.19.11- Related to Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes- Lithographic and Letterpress Printing

Response to comments for the public hearing held on July 11, 2011 for COMAR 26.11.19.23- Related to Control of VOC Emissions from Vehicle Refinishing

Acrobat® Reader is required to view and print the PDF files. If you do not have it click on the icon to the right.

Contact the Office | Accessibility | Privacy Notice 1800 Washington Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21230 | (410) 537-3000

### Page 1 of3



### Debbie Rabin

- Notice of Public Hearings

- Please confirm receipt

From:
To: Date: Debbie Rabin
Ali Mirzakhalili; Cecily Beall; Diana Esher; John Benedict; Joyce Ep

... 5/11/2012 12:22 PM Subject: Notice of Public Hearings -.Please confirm receipt 

### CC: Angelo Bianca; Hal Frankford; Kathleen Cox; Marcia Spink; Tad Aburn

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

AIR & RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Maryland Department of the Environment gives notice of public hearings concerning the following actions:



### - 1. Proposal to amend Regulation .03 and repeal Regulations .04- .09 under COMAR 26.11.04 Ambient Air Quality Standards. The purpose of this action is to adopt the following revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as required by Section 2-302 (c) of the Environment Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland:

• the 2006 revised NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) and update the definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58.

• the 2010 revised NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (S0 2 ) and update the definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50, 53 and 58.

• the 2008 NAAQS for ground-level ozone (0 3 ) and update the definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58.

• the 2010 revised NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (N0 2 ) and update the definitions,
reference conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58.

• the 2008 NAAQS for lead (Pb) and update the definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 53 and 58.

In this regulatory action the NAAQS are being incorporated by reference prospectively in order for Maryland's ambient air quality standards to be identical to the federal standards at all times.

This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as part of Maryland's State Implementation Plan.

2. Proposal to adopt new Regulation .27-1 under CO MAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes. The purpose of this action is to adopt the requirements of the EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts which include controls for pleasure craft coating operations. EPA develops CTGs

as guidance on control requirements for source categories. States can follow the CTGs or adopt more restrictive standards. MOE proposes to adopt new standards and requirements



### file:/ /C :\Documents and Settings\drabin\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\4F AD046EMD

... 10/24/2012

### Page 2 of3

that have been developed in coordination with EPA and trade associations representing the pleasure craft industry.

This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as part of Maryland's State Implementation Plan.

3. Proposal to remove the Board of Education of Allegheny County's 1979 Consent Order from the State Implementation Plan. 

### The coal-fired boiler located at Beall High School has been demolished along with the entire school. The Department issued a construction permit for

a 15.5 

### million BTU per hour coal fired boiler on February 6, 1979.



### This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as a revision to Maryland's State Implementation Plan.

4. Proposal to remove the Mt. Saint Mary's College 1979 Consent Order from the State Implementation Plan. 

### The coal-fired F. Keeler Company Boiler has been modified by removing the coal firing capability and converting the boiler to mainly fire natural gas with No. 2 fuel oil backup. The Department issued a construction permit for this modification on July 18, 2000.



### This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as a revision to Maryland's State Implementation Plan.

The full text of the proposed amendments and new regulation listed under #1 and 

### #2 will appear in the Maryland Register at http://www.dsd.state.md.us/mdregister/ on June 15, 2012.



### Public hearings on the four (4) proposed actions listed above will be held on 

### July 18,2012 at 10 a.m. at the Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, 1st Floor Conference Rooms, Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1720.

The technical support documents (TSDs) are available for public review on the Maryland Department of the Environment's website at the following address: http :1/www. mde .state. md. us/aboutmde/pages/reqcomments.aspx

The proposed actions and supporting documents are also 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.

Interested persons are invited to attend and express their views. Comments may be mailed 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, or faxed to (410) 537-4223. Comments must be received not later than 

### July 18, 2012, or be submitted at the hearing. For more information, call Deborah Rabin at (41 0) 537-3240.

Anyone needing special accommodations at a public hearing should contact the Department's Fair Practices Office at (41 0) 537-3964. TTY users may contact the Department through the Maryland Relay Service at 1-800-735-2258.

GEORGE S. ABURN, JR. Director Air & Radiation Management Administration



### file://C:\Documents and Settings\drabin\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FAD046EMD... 10/24/2012Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator Air & Radiation Management Administration Maryland Dept. of the Environment 1800 Washington Blvd., Suite 730 Baltimore, MD 21230

Telephone Number: (410)-537-4414 

### Page 3 of3

file:/ /C: \Documents and Settings\drabin \Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\4 F AD046EMD... 1 0/24/2012Subject: Created By: Scheduled Date: Creation Date: From: Notice of Public Hearings

- Please confirm receipt drabin@mde.state.md.us

5/11/201212:22 PM Debbie Rabin

Recipient Action Date & Time Comment**~~~~~~~·"-"'"~ ~~**  To:**Ali_fv1irz!kh<:~1Aii.Mirzakhalili@~~~_:c£e~li~L-~~--~~Cl_~s_~~E:!~~-- ~** **~~5~!~!201_2_13~2-~~_fv1 ~** **~~C:** An!!e.'? Bianca**(abianca@mde:~c:te.m~~s)~-~~** _**!~~<:!::Party _IJ::>'v'J~Io~~E;!d** **~~~-5~/~1_2_/2~~0~_12_~_4:~0,_4_~~A~~M~~--~-,-~-,~--,~- -~~<:;:_13_1"ian**  Hug (bhug@mde.state:md.usL___**~lllptied_~--~** 5/27/2012 12:00 AM 5/11/201212:22 PM 

### Page 1 of 1

_ 5/1**!'?~1? !?:??~f\.1~** **~~** ?:0.0**lll!:!ssa~erelay~d <~** **-~!3<:;:** David A!nold**(arnold.david@epa.go~L** __**-~--** __**Transfer~~~~-** 5/11/2012 12:22 PM 2.0.0**messajiE;l_~e-~ayE;!d** _**-~_!3C:** Debbie Rabin**(drabin@mde.state.m~:ll~L- ----~}hir~:~C:~XE~:v"r1~oa_cled**  ___**~!_?~?9~2 4~~~-** 

5/12/2012 5:20AM
5/11/2012 12:22 PM**2.0.0111e~~~ge rE;!I~yed**  5/14/201211:50AM
7/23/2012 1 0:26AM

____ , ____ <<<**~--<:;~~~c:i£rankford** (frankford.harold@epa.gov) Transferred 5/11/2012 12:22 PM**2:g:91lle~sa_g_erei~YE;!~**

__ !3_C: Joe He_l"b**Qherb@mde.state.md.us)~-------** _!hird-Party**l)ownlo~~=d** 5/12/2012 5:32AM

___ To:**Johr1_~enedict (John.A.Benedict@wv.g~---**  , ____ Tr_ansferred

__**!5/_~_12_0_12~~,?:??£'M<~<<** To: Joyce Epps Qeepps@state.pa.us)**-~-~~---~ _2r~~s~~er~red~~----~-~-**  5/11/2012 12:22 PM

_**_!3_<:;~** Karen_l_l"ons**(kirons@mde::~Cl_tE;!.md.us)** __

CC: Kathleen Cox (cox.kathleen@epa.gov)

, __ ,,,,**-~S Ka~_leen** **Per~t(_kPE:!~~~mde.s~tE:!:Ill~:us)** _**~Th i~-P~rty** **Do_w<~<I<<~C:de~d<** __ , <**~5** __**~1_1_2,/~2-~0-<1_** 2

__

4_:

__**36,-A_M~~--- <~-**  <**,_~T~_r_a_n** __**s~_e_rr,e_d** _______ , ____ , ____ 5_11_1_1_2

__**0~1**

__ 2

__

1

__ 2 :_2

__**2~ ,~P**  __**M~-,-- ?·~0:9_111_6_5~a~~rE:!Ia~e~-**  <<

CC: Marcia Spink (spink.marcia@epa.gov) Transferred 5/11/2012 12:22 PM 2.0.0 message relayed

_,, __**,,,,,,-~~~-~-~,** ___**,,~~-~,~~,~-~~-""''** ,,,_,,,,,,**~!o: Micha_e:I_[)~IJVd** **(mgdowcj@deq.vi~~Lnia_:~~L** _ Transferred 5/11/2012 12:22 PM

<<**~!J_<:;~~~p~_l:la~l (rhall@mde:~C:tE:!:md_:L~_sL_~~-**  __ <<<<<<**Thir~:~~rty[)():v"nloaded** 5/12/2012 4:54AM

<**-~<:;:~C:~L MosiE:!!1flll_c>~~@mde.sta~_-_~d_:u~s)**  _ _ ____**Emp_tiE;!~** _ CC: Tad Aburn (gaburn@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party Downloaded 5/27/2012 2:25AM
5/12/2012 4:23AM



### file://C:\Documents and Settings\drabin\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\4F AD046EMD... 10/24/2012

### Page 1 of3



### Debbie Rabin

- Notice of Public Hearings

- Please confirm receipt

From: To: 

### Date: Debbie Rabin All County Environmental Health Directors; All County Health Officers;

... 5/11/2012 12:19 PM 

### Subject: Notice of Public Hearings

- Please confirm receipt Angelo Bianca; Tad Aburn CC:



### MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

AIR & 

### RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Maryland Department of the Environment gives notice of public hearings concerning the following actions:



### 1. Proposal to amend Regulation .03 and repeal Regulations .04-.09 under COMAR 26.11.04 Ambient Air Quality Standards. The purpose of this action is to adopt the following revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as required by Section 2-302 (c) of the Environment Article of the. Annotated Code of Maryland:

• the 2006 revised NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) and update the definitions, reference conditions, ·and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58.

• the 201 0 revised NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (S0 2 ) and update the definitions,**referer~ce** conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50, 53 and 58.

• the 2008 NAAQS for ground-level ozone (0 3 ) and update the definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58.

• the 2010 revised NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (N0 2 ) and update the definitions,
reference conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58.

• the 2008 NAAQS for lead (Pb) and update the definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement as specified in 40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 53 and 58.

In this regulatory action the NAAQS are being incorporated by reference prospectively in order for Maryland's ambient air quality standards to be identical to the federal standards at all times.

This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as part of Maryland's State Implementation Plan.



### 2. Proposal to adopt new Regulation .27-1 under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes. The purpose of this action is to adopt the requirements of the EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts which include controls for pleasure craft coating operations. EPA develops CTGs

as guidance on control requirements for source categories. States can follow the CTGs or adopt more restrictive standards. MOE proposes to adopt new standards and requirements



### file://C:\Documents and Settings\drabin\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\4F AD03CAM... 10/24/2012

### Page 2 of3

that have been developed in coordination with EPA and trade associations representing the pleasure craft industry.

This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as part of Maryland's State Implementation Plan.



### 3. Proposal to remove the Board of Education of Allegheny County's 1979 Consent Order from the State Implementation Plan. The coal-fired boiler located at Beall High School has been demolished along with the entire school. The Department issued a construction permit for

a 

### 15-.5 million BTU per hour coal fired boiler on February 6, 

### 1979.

This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as a revision to Maryland's State Implementation Plan.



### 4. Proposal to remove the Saint Mary's College 1979 Consent Order from the State Implementation Plan. The coal-fired F. Keeler Company Boiler has been modified by removing the coal firing capability and converting the boiler to mainly fire natural gas with No. 2 fuel oil backup. The Department issued a construction permit for this modification on July 18, 2000.

This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as a revision to Maryland's State Implementation Plan.

The full text of the proposed amendments and new regulation listed under 

### #1 and #2 will appear in the Marvland Register at http://www.dsd.state.md.us/mdregister/ on 

### June 15, 2012.



### Public hearings on the four (4) proposed actions listed above will be held on 

### July 18,2012 at 10 a.m. at the Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, 1st Floor Conference Rooms, Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1720.

The technical support documents (TSDs) are available for public review on the Maryland Department of the Environment's website at the following address: http://www.mde.state.md.us/aboutmde/pages/reqcomments.aspx

The proposed actions and supporting documents are also 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.



### Please make these materials available in your office for public review.

Interested persons are invited to attend and express their views. Comments may be mailed 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, or faxed to (410) 537-4223. Comments must be received not later than 

### July 18, 2012, or be submitted at.the hearing. For more information, call Deborah Rabin at (41 0) 537-3240.

Anyone needing special accommodations at a public hearing should contact the Department's Fair Practices Office at (410) 537-3964. TIY users may contact the Department through the Maryland Relay Service at 1-800-735-2258.

GEORGE S. ABURN, JR. Director



### file://C:\Documents and Settings\drabin\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\4F AD03CAM... 10/24/2012Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator Air & Radiation Management Administration Maryland Dept. of the Environment 1800 Washington Blvd., Suite 730 Baltimore, MD 21230

Telephone Number: (410)-537-4414 

### Page 3 of3

Air & Radiation Management Administration



### file://C:\Documents and Settings\drabin\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FAD03CAM... 10/24/2012Subject: Created By: Scheduled Date: Creation Date: From: Notice of Public Hearings

- Please confirm receipt drabin@mde.state.md.us

5/11/2012 12:19 PM Debbie Rabin 

### Page 1 of7

Action Date & Time Comment
To: Allegany County Environmental Health Director (AL Co Env Health Director.FIELD OFFICES PO.FIELD OFFICES)



### -**~-~~--~** To: Allegany County Health Officer (AL Co Health Officer.FIELD OFFICES PO.FIELD OFFICES)**~-~--~ ---~~--~~~~~-~~~-~~-** 

To: Anne Arundel County Environmental Health Director (AA Co Env Health**Dire~.r::FIELD_OFFICES_P<::).FIELD OFFICESL~.**  Transferred

Transferred

Undeliverable

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM
5/11/2012 12:40 PM

5/11/2012 12:40 PM 550 5.1.1 User unknown
To: Anne Arundel Health Officer (AA Co Health**~fficer.FIELp** OFFICES PO.FIELD OFFICES)**-~--** To: Baltimore City Environmental Health Director (BA Cty Env Health Director.FIELD_OFFICES PO.FIELD OFFICES) Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM**~~-~-------~-~-~- ·--~~~~---~-----** **---~--~---------~--** To: Baltimore City Health Officer (BA Cty Health Officer. FIELD_**OFFICES_P_~O~.F~I~EL~D~O-~F~F~IC~E~S.:..)** _________**~**

To: Baltimore County Environmental Health Director (BA Co Env Health Director. FIELD_ OFFICES_PO. Fl ELD _OFFICES)**----~-~~-------~~-----** --- To: Baltimore County Environmental Health Director 2 (BA Co Env Health Director2.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

-------- To: Baltimore County Health Officer (BA Co Health Officer. FIELD_ OFFICES_PO. FIELD_ OFFICES)**-~---**

To: Calvert County Health Officer (CA Co Health Officer.FIELD OFFICES PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

To: Caroline and Kent County Health Officer (CO and KE Co Health Officer.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES) Transferred

Transferred

Transferred

Transferred

Transferred

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM
5/11/2012 12:40 PM
5/11/2012 12:40 PM
5/11/2012 12:40 PM

5/11/2012 12:40 PM
5/11/2012 12:40 PM
To: Caroline County Environmental Health Director (CO Co Env Health Transferred 5/11/2012 Director.FIELD_OFFICES PO.FIELD_OFFICES) 12:40 PM

-**~~~-··--~~~~~~--N--~~----~-»~-~~-~-~----~~--~-~** uUU-u>**---~----~-~--~~--** To: Carroll County Environmental Health Director (CL Co Env Health Director. FIELD_ OFFICES_PO. Fl ELD _OFFICES)**'~-~~-~~~~~** To: Carroll County Health Officer (CL Co Health**Officer.F~LD_OFFICES** PO.FII§_LD_OFFICES)

----------------------- Transferred

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM
5/11/2012 12:40 PM
To: Cecil County Environmental Health Director (CE Co Env Health 5/11/2012

### Director.FII§_LD:-OFFI~ES_P~~FIELD OFFICES)

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

### -~---~r~~~fe~ed ________ 12:40 PM To: Cecil County Health Officer (CE Co Health Officer. FIELD_ OFFICES_PO. FIELD_ OFFICES)

To: Charles County Health Officer (CH Co Health Officer.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES) Transferred

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

5/11/2012 12:40 PM**~--~~--~-----~~-~------~-~~----~~"~-~~---~--~------ -~--~-~--~------** **---------~----~-~~"--------~~~------~~-~**

To: Dorchester County Health Officer (DO Co Health Officer.FIELD OFFICES_PO.FIELD OFFICES) Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM**-~----"~-----~-~~~~~-~-----~--~--~~~------~~----~~~-~-~----- --~--~-~---~~--~~------**  To: Frederick County Environmental Health Director (FR Co Env Health Director.FIELD_OFFICES PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

To: Frederick County Health Officer (FR Co Health Officer.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)**--~~~ -~------~--~--~--~,~,0~>0**  , __**,,,,~,,-~~0''''~**

To: Garrett County Environmental Health Director (GA Co Env Health Director.FIELD OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

To: Garrett County Health Officer (GA Co Health <:)fficer.FIELD**OFFICI§__5-~_Q. ~IELD**  _**O~_F~CE_sL~--~~-----~--- ~­** 

To: Harford County Environmental Health Director (HA Co Env Health Director.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

To: Harford County Health Officer (HA Co Health Delivered

Delivered

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:19 PM
5/11/2012 12:19 PM
5/11/2012 12:40 PM**,,,_,,_,0~'-'''"'~------,--------~~----'''-~---~~~~** Transferred

Transferred

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM
5/11/2012 12:40 PM

5/11/2012



### file://C :\Documents and Settings\drabin \Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\4 F AD03 CAM

... 10/24/2012To: Howard County Environmental Health Director (HO Co Env Health Director. FIELD_ OFFICES_PO. Fl ELD _OFFICES)**--~--- ---~-** **-~-------** _,**~ ~** **--------~----** ---**-~-- ~---**  - To: Howard County Health Officer (HO Co Health Officer.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

To: Kent County Environmental Health Director (KE Co Env Health Director.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

- - --- -----**~~---~~-~** "' - --- -- -----**-----------~** ----- -
- -- - - - ---------- - To: Montgomery County Environmental Health Director (MO Co Env Health Director.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

--------**--~-----~---~-~---~--~~-~---~-------- ~----**  -**----~--~--** To: Montgomery County Environmental Health Director 2 (MO Co Env Protection. FIELD_ OFFICES_PO. FIELD_ OFFICES)

-- --**-----~- -~----------------------~~-~--------~-------------------~--~-----~-~---**  - To: Montgomery County Health Officer (MO Co Health Officer.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

-------**---------~---** ---**---~-----------** To: Montgomery County Wells and Permits (MO Co Permits and Wells.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

To: Prince Georges County Environmental Health Director (PG Co Env Health Director.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

- ------------- ----------- ---**---------~** ------------------ To: Prince Georges County Health Officer (PG Co Health Officer. Fl ELD

_ OFFICES_PO. FIELD.:.. OFFICES)

------------**---~-~- ~~--~**  ''"'' -----------------------**~-** - ---------- -

- - --- To: Queen Annes County Environmental Health Director (QA Co Env Health Director. FIELD _OFFICES_PO. Fl ELD _OFFICES) -»H0>>---------------------------'**~--** --- '>

____ ,,,, __ ,,_,, --**~--------»->•-->** _,,, ''0 To: Queen Annes County Health Officer (QA Co Health Officer. Fl ELD _OFFICES _PO. Fl ELD _OFFICES)**----~-----------------** -**--~----** - To: Somerset County Environmental Health Director (SO Co Env Health Director.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)**-~-~-------- ~-----~"-''''"~--'**  -------- - -----

To: Somerset County Health Officer (SO Co Health Officer. FIELD_ OFFICES_PO.FIELD_ OFFICES)
To: St Marys County Environmental Health Director (SM Co Env Health Director.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

-**~-** " - ------------**-----~-** --- -**~----** - To: St Marys County Health Officer (SM Co Health Officer. FIELD_ OFFICES_PO. Fl ELD_ OFFICES)
To: Talbot County Environmental Health Director (TACo Env Health Director.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

To: Talbot County Health Officer (TACo Health Officer.FIELD

...**,,OFFICES""'~O.FIELD_,OFFICE~)** To: Washington County Environmental Health Director (WACo Env Health Director.FIELD_OFFICES_PO.FIELD_OFFICES)

To: Washington County Health Officer (WACo Health Officer. FIELD_ OFFICES_PO. FIELD_ OFFICES)
To: Wicomico County Environmental Health Director (WI Co Env Health Director.FI ELD _OFFICES _PO. FIELD_ OFFICES)

----------------- - To: Wicomico County Health Officer (WI Co Health Officer. FIELD_ OFFICES_PO. FIELD_ OFFICES)

- ---------- - To: Worcester County Environmental Health Director (WO Co Env Health Director. Fl ELD

_ OFFICES_PO. Fl ELD _OFFICES)

-- -

- To: Worcester County Health Officer (WO Co Health Officer. FIELD_ OFFICES_PO. FIELD_ OFFICES)**~ ~** **~** To: Ace Adkins (AAdkins@mde.state.md.us)

To: Adam Corry (ACorry@mde.state.md.us)

To: AI Hooker (AHooker@mde.state.md.us)

To: Alan Kampmeyer (AKampmeyer@mde.state.md.us)

To: Allison OHanlon (AOHanlon@mde.state.md.us)

CC: Angelo Bianca (abianca@mde.state.md.us)

To: Ann McManus (AMcManus@mde.state.md.us) 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Transferred 5/11/2012 12:40 PM

Read 5/14/2012 12:40 PM Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:04AM

Emptied 5/29/2012 6:15PM

Emptied 5/27/2012 2:02AM

Emptied 5/27/2012 2:18AM Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:04AM

Emptied 5/23/2012



### file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings\drabin\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\4F AD03CAM

... Page 2 of7

10/24/2012

### Page 3 of7

2:25PM
To: April Stehr (AStehr@mde.state.md.us) Deleted 6/6/2012 8:55 AM
To: Audrey Hansen (AHansen@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/31/2012 1:11AM
To: Barbara Santana (BSantana@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 5:15AM
To: Bill Murphy (bmurphy@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:27PM
To: Blake Pritts (BPritts@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:14PM
To: Brad Metzger (bmetzger@mde.state.md.us) Read 5/14/2012 8:49AM
To: Bradley Nee (BNee@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:10PM
To: Brennan Greene (BGreene@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/16/2012 10:02 AM
BC: Brian Hug (bhug@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 12:00 AM
To: Brian Littlefield (blittlefield@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:20AM
To: Byron Fairall (BFairall@mde.state.md.us) Read 5/14/2012 5:49PM
To: Carlton Washburn (cwashburn@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/16/2012 9:41AM**~** To: Charles Hatfield (CHatfield@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:11AM
To: Charles Poukish (cpoukish@mde.state.md.us) Read 5/16/2012 4:06PM
To: Chris Luckett (cluckett@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/17/2012 12:02 PM
To: Connie Loucks (CLoucks@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 6/21/2012 1:55PM
To: Dennis Rasmussen (drasmussen@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:24AM
BC: Diana Alegre (dalegre@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 5:20AM
To: Elaine Maliniak (EMaliniak@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/23/2012 4:16PM
To: Farah Abi-Akar (FAbi-Akar@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/14/2012 7:17AM
To: Gilbert Lookingland (glookingland@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 6/1/2012 1:13 AM
To: Glen Savage (gsavage@mde.state.md.us) Replied 5/14/2012 10:57 AM
BC: Horacia Tablada (htablada@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:27AM
To: James Forrest (qforrest@mde.state.md.us) Read 5/13/2012 12:14AM
BC: Jed Miller (JLMiller@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 5:37AM
BC: Joe Herb Oherb@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 5:32AM
To: John Holt (JHolt@mde.state.md.us) Read 5/15/2012 12:59 AM
To: John Lynch Olynch@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 6/1/20121:14 AM
To: John McKay (JMcKay@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:29AM
To: Joseph Gay Ogay@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012



### file://C:\Documents and Settings\drabin\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FAD03CAM

... 10/24/2012

### Page 4 of7

2:28AM
To: Kathleen Bassett (KBasse'tt@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5112/2012 Downloaded 5:37AM
To: Marcia Potter (mpotter@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 5:48AM
To: Mitch Welsh (mwelsh@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/24/2012 10:19 AM
To: Nicholas Kaltenbach (NKaltenbach@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 5:50AM
To: Rob Hill (rhill@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/23/2012 12:16 PM
To: Ross Kelly (RKelly@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 6/9/2012 8:50 AM
To: Shawn Lowman (SLowman@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 5:59AM
To: Shirley Kirby (SKirby@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:41AM
To: Steve Hiner (shiner@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 6/2/2012 1 :56 AM
To: Susan Tiffany (STiffany@mde.state.md.us) Delivered 5/11/2012 12:19 PM
To: Todd Kamens (Tkamens@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:43AM
To: William Beatty (wbeatty@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:05PM
To: William Evans (WEvans@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 6:05AM
To: Cathy Renner (crenner@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/16/2012 12:42 PM
To: Chris Pajak (CPajak@mde.state.md.us) Read 5/15/2012 10:12 AM
To: Chris Westergard (cwestergard@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 6/1/2012 1:13 AM
To: Dave Pushkar (dpushkar@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/24/2012 3:13PM
To: Dave Ryder (dryder@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/30/2012 8:50AM
To: David Bramble (DBramble@mde.state.md.us) Read 5/14/2012 8:14AM
BC: Debbie Rabin (drabin@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:19AM
To: Dennis Brown (dbrown@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:11 PM
BC: Diane Franks (dfranks@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/14/2012 11:50AM
To: Don Bradley (dbradley@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 6/29/2012 4:55PM
To: Donna Disharoon (DDisharoon@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/22/2012 10:20AM
To: Erik Schafer (ESchafer@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 6/23/2012 Downloaded 5:27AM
To: Evelyn Stavrou (estavrou@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 6/1/2012 4:02 PM
To: Finka Cathey (fcathey@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/14/2012 2:11 PM
BC: Frank Courtright (fcourtright@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/22/2012 12:10 PM
To: Harald Vanaller (hvanaller@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:10AM
To: Harry Hunsicker (hhunsicker@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012



### file://C:\Documents and Settings\drabin\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\4F AD03CAM

... 10/24/2012

### Page 5 of7

6:28PM
To: Jan Spotts (ispotts@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:07PM
To: James Craig (JCraig@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/15/2012 3:21PM
To: Jared Tanaka Otanaka@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:13AM
To: Jay Bozman (JBozman@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/14/2012 7:45AM
BC: Jay Sakai Qsakai@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:34AM
To: Jeff Snyder (JSnyder@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 7/6/2012 11:43 AM
To: Jennifer Jaber Qjaber@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:24PM
To: Joe Kincaid Okincaid@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:31AM
To: Joe Mills (JMills@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:12AM
To: John Carey (JCarey@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:28AM
To: Julie OConnor Ooconnor@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:31AM
BC: Karen Irons (kirons@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:13AM
BC: Kathleen Perry (kperry@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:37AM
To: Lisa Green (LGreen@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:39AM
To: Lisa Trujillo (ltrujillo@mde.state.md.us) Read

To: Lorri Broadwater (LBroadwater@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/24/2012 9:01AM
To: Mark Carney (MCarney@mde.state.md.us) Read 5/14/2012 7:13AM
To: Mark Ecker (mecker@mde.state.md.us) Read 5/15/2012 7:07AM
To: Mark Hajas (mhajas@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/14/2012 4:26PM
To: Mary Lynn Pegg (MPegg@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/18/2012 11:07 AM
To: Mary Phipps-Dickerson (MPhipps-Dickerson@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:19AM
To: Matt Radcliffe (MRadcliffe@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:19AM
To: Maureen Eckard (meckard@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:04PM
To: Michele Burroughs (MBurroughs@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:41AM
To: Michelle Arrington (marrington@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 12:14 PM
To: Michelle Walston (MWalston@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/16/2012 11:31 AM
To: Mike Garner (MGarner@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:52PM
To: Nancy Craft (ncraft@mde.state.md.us) Read 5/14/2012 1:52PM
To: Oladapo John (OJohn@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:50AM
To: Paul Ferreri (pferreri@mde.state.md.us) Read 5/15/2012



### file://C:\Documents and Settings\drabin\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\4 F AD03CAM

... 10/24/2012

### Page 6 of7

10:57 AM
To: Pavia Dilnesahu (PDilnesahu@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:52PM
To: Pete Hartman (PHartman@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/14/2012 4:01PM
CC: Tad Aburn (gaburn@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:23AM
BC: Bob Rosenbush (BRosenbush@mdp.state.md.us) Transferred 5/11/2012 12:19 PM
BC: Diana Esher (esher.diana@epa.gov) Transferred 5/11/2012 2.0.0 message 12:19 PM relayed**~-** -- BC: Hal Frankford (frankford.harold@epa.gov) Transferred 5/11/2012 2.0.0 message 12:19 PM

. rE:J.I(l¥ed To: Julie OConnor (joconnor@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:31AM
BC: Linda Janey (ljaney@mdp.state.md.us) Transferred 5/11/2012 12:19 PM
BC: Marcia Spink (spink.marcia@epa.gov) Transferred 5/11/2012 2.0.0 message 12:19 PM relayed
To: Maryland Clearinghouse (clearinghouse@mdp.state.md.us) Transferred 5/11/2012 12:19 PM
To: Pavia Dilnesahu (PDilnesahu@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:52PM
To: Punam Tyagi (ptyagi@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:23AM
BC: Ralph Hall (rhall@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:54AM
To: Ralph Mongold (RMongold@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:14PM
To: Randy Denny (rdenny@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:53AM
BC: Randy Mosier (rmosier@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:25AM
To: Ray Karlstrand (RKarlstrand@mde.state.md.us) Deleted 6/11/2012 9:52AM
To: Rich Wolters (rwolters@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/27/2012 2:25AM
To: Richard Stewart (RStewart@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:56AM
To: Robert Rushlow (RRushlow@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 4:56AM
To: Sarah Harvey (SJHarvey@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/24/2012 12:55 PM
To: Scot Nicol (SNicol@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/22/2012 1:38PM
To: Scott Boylan (sboylan@mde.state.md.us) Read 5/14/2012 10:11 AM
To: Sean McKewen (SMcKewen@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:18PM
To: Steve Dawson (SDawson@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:04PM
To: Tamara Davis (TDavis@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 6/5/2012 6:51 PM
To: Terri Palamaras (tpalamaras@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/21/2012 12:41 PM
To: Tim Miller (TMiller@mde.state.md.us) Third-Party 5/12/2012 Downloaded 5:02AM
To: Tom Murray (tmurray@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012 6:16PM
To: Tracey Thomas (tthomas@mde.state.md.us) Emptied 5/29/2012



### file:/ /C: \Documents and Settings\drabin \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwise\4 F AD03 CAM

... 10/24/2012To: Tymika Brown (tkbrown@mde.state.md.us)

To: Waldo Nelson (WNelson@mde.state.md.us)

To: William Fracassi (wfracassi@mde.state.md.us) Emptied

Third-Party Downloaded Third-Party Downloaded 6:53PM
5/27/2012 2:28AM
5/12/2012 5:05AM
5/12/2012 5:05AM 

### Page 7 of7

file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings\drabin\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\4F AD03CAM... 10/24/2012

### Statement of the Air and Radiat ion Management Administration Department of the Environment for the Public Hearing Relating to Proposed Regulation .27-1 Pleasure Craft Coating Operations under COMAR 26.11.19 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes held on July 18, 2012 Baltimore, MD

My name is Husain Waheed. I am a Senior Regulatory and Compliance Engineer with the Regulation Development Division of the Ai r and Radiation Management Administration, Department of the Environment.

This public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 51.102 and 

### Sections 2-301 et.seq. of the Environment Article , Annotated Code of Maryland. It is also being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedures Act under the State Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101.

Notice of this hearing appeared in the:

Maryland Register on June 15, 2012; MDE's website from May 11, 2012 through July 18, 2012; Baltimore Sun on June 15, 2012; Washington Post on June 14, 2012; Frederick News-Post on June 15, 2012; Cumberland Times-News on June 15, 2012; Saint Mary's Enterprise on June 15, 2012; Salisbury Daily Times on June 15, 2012; and the Cecil Whig on June 15, 2012.

Copies of these notices were submitted for the record.

Copies of the proposed action and supporting documents were submitted for review to the State Clearinghouse and are also submitted at this time into the hearing record. Copies were also made available for public inspection at th e Air and Radiation Management Administration offices in Baltimore, Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local air quality control offices.

The purpose of today's hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed regulation .27-1 under COMAR 26.11.19.

Summary

The requirements of this regulation apply to pleasure craft and fiberglass boat coating operations at a premises with actual VOC emissions of 15 pounds or more per day from coating operations as determined on a monthly average, on or after January 1, 2013.

The proposed regulation sets standards for the following coatings: 1.Extreme High Gloss

1

### 2 Topcoat; 2. High Gloss Topcoat; 3. Finish Primer/Surfacer; 4. High Build Primer/Surfacer; 5. Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating; 6. An tifouling Sealer/Tiecoat; 7. Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating; and 8. All Other Coatings.

Application methods for coatings are limited to: 1. Electrostatic application; 2. HVLP spray; 3. Flow coat; 4. Roller coat; 5. Dip coat including electrodeposition; 6. Brush coat; or 7.Airless spray; 8. Air-assisted airless spray; or 9. Other coating application method capable of achieving a transfer efficiency equivalent or better than that achieved by HVLP spraying.

The work practice requirements establish standards for the usage of all VOC containing materials.

Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

These amendments will be submitted to the EPA for approval as part of the SIP.
Consideration of Comments The Department will consider all comments before making a decision to adopt these amendments.

### DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AIR AND RADIATION MANA GEMENT ADMINISTRATION

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

for the

PUBLIC HEARING held on July 18, 2012 in BALTIMORE, MD related to Regulation .27-1under chapter COMAR 26.11.19

Purpose of Hearing : The purpose of the public hearing was to allow for public comment on the Department's proposal to adop t Regulation .27-1 under chapter COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from Specific Processes.

The proposed regulation adopts the require ments of the Environmental Protection Agency Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) EPA -453/R-08-003, September 2008
, Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Co atings, for pleasure craft coating.

Date and Location : The public hearing was held on July 18, 2012 at 10 a.m. at the Department of the Environment, 1800 Wa shington Boulevard, 1st Floor Aeris Conference Room, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

Attendance : Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordina tor, Air and Radiation Management Administration, served as Hearing Officer. Mr. John Dunigan, Inte rnational Paint and Marine Trade Association of Maryland and Steven Unthoff, Annapolis Gel Coat and Fiberglass Repair.

Statement : The Department's statement was read by Husain Waheed, Senior Regulatory and Compliance Engineer of the Regulation Development Division of the Air and Radiation Management Ad ministration, Department of the Environment.

Comments and Responses : Comments were received from Mr. John Dunigan, International Paint and Mari ne Trade Association of Ma ryland and Steven Unthoff, Annapolis Gel Coat and Fiberglass Repair. The oral comments received, in some instances, have been summarized and the Department's response given below.

Sell-Through Provision

1. COMMENT: Include a sell-through provision of 1 year be added to the proposed regulation. Sell-through provisions are intended to provide a smooth transition to a new emission standard by allowing businesses to sell, for a limited period of time, their inventories of noncomplying produc ts that still exist on the effective date of the new standard.

### RESPONSE: The proposed regulation, COMAR 26.11.19.27-1 does not outright prohibit the sale or use of noncompliant pr oducts in the State of Maryland. Affected sources may still sell noncompliant products so long as they are not applied at the affected facility. The ability to sell noncompliant product negates the necessity for a sellthrough provision.

The Maryland Department of the Environmen t (MDE) began informing stakeholders of the proposed regulation, COMAR 2 6.11.19.27-1, in May of 2011. MDE received approval for an original version of the re gulation by the Air Quality Control Advisory Council on June 13, 2011. The Department received significant comments from stakeholders at a public hearing held on September 27, 2011 and subsequently withdrew the regulation on October 21, 2011 to address st akeholder concerns. U nder the provisions of the original proposed re gulation, the requirements of the regulation would have become effective immediately upon adoption of the regulation. The Department amended the effective date of the regulation to January 1, 2013 to allow time for affected businesses to utilize existing product and to allow for additional compliant product to come to market and users to become familiar with their application and performance. The Department has worked closely with stak eholders through the regulation development and adoption process to provide ample time for usage and sale of existing products.

15 Pound Per Day Applicability

2. COMMENT: The standards become applicable at 15 pounds per day of VOCs averaged over a 30 day period. Consideration should be give n to averaging over a period of 365 days as has been the case in New England states.

RESPONSE: The proposed regulation affects pleasur e craft and fiberglass boat coating operations at a premises with actual VOC em issions of 15 pounds or more per day from coating operations as determined on a monthl y average. 15 pounds or more per day from coating operations as determined on a monthly average is the applicability threshold that determines whether a facility needs to m eet the standards and requirements of the proposed regulation.

Under the Department’s original proposed ru le published in the Maryland Register on August 26, 2011, the applicability threshold was establishe d at 15 pounds or more per day of VOC. Based upon stakeholders commen ts the Department made amendments to the applicability section and allowed for a monthly averagi ng period. MDE arrived at this applicability threshold in consultation w ith EPA Region III. A monthly average would relax the original, tighter app licability threshold while still establishing an applicability that would provide meaningful emission benef its from the regulation. Due to the cyclical nature of pleasure craft coating in Maryla nd, an annual average of VOC emissions would not accurately reflect the true emission cy cle. Pleasure craft coating operations in Maryland occur at a peak cycle during the spring, while operations continue throughout the summer with a subsequent peak in the fall.

### Furthermore, Maryland regulations pertaining to VOC emissions do not have a 365 day averaging period for the applicability for any VOC standard. A longer averaging period would mean that fewer sources would be aff ected and fewer benefits would be achieved. VOC emission reductions in Maryland remain as an important factor in meeting current and future, stricter federal ground level ozone standards. Maryland, and in particular the Baltimore metropolitan region, is exposed to some of the worst air quality levels in the nation. Also of note, while there was an initial draft of a pleasure cr aft coating regulation released by the State of Connecticut which included a 365 day average of VOC emissions for applicability, Connecticut’s regulation has not been adopted or approved by EPA.

Effective Date of Regulation

3. COMMENT: The effective date of this regula tion is January 1st, 2013. Due to the nature of the pleasure craft co ating industry and the difficulty in changing equipment and spray techniques and the learning curve for appliers on using new products, it would be helpful to have an effective date of June 1st, 2013, to give enough time to retrain, reeducate and resupply affected facilities.

RESPONSE: As stated above in response to co mment #1, the Department has already made amendments to the effective date of the regulation to accommodate product development, user training and usage of ex isting product. Under the provisions of the original proposed regulation, the requirements of the regulation would have become effective immediately upon adoption of the regulation. The Department amended the effective date of the regulation to January 1, 2013 to allow time for affected businesses to utilize existing product and to allow for addi tional compliant product to come to market and users to become familiar with their application and performance. Therefore, the Department believes that adequate time for usage of existing products has already been made available through the regulation development and adoption process.

Multiple Businesses

4. COMMENT: The landowner who pays the prope rty taxes determines whether the facility is VOC-compliant or not base d on the amount of product used. In some cases, there are renters or leased businesses on the same property that will fall below the 15 pounds average per day over a 30-day peri od. It puts a burden on these businesses to use compliant products when they are actual ly below the regulation. There are separate businesses located under one landowner and th ey pay separate taxes and are separate entities. These businesses should be considered as separate units for the applicab ility of the regulation.

RESPONSE: The regulation applies to pleasure craft coating operations at premises where the total VOC emissions equals or ex ceeds 15 pounds per day from pleasure craft coating operations. Therefore the premises, in this case the marina, is subject to the regulation and needs to determine all em issions released by the marina and all independent contractors perfor ming pleasure craft coating oper ations on the premises for

### purposes of determining app licability and ensuring compliant products are used and maintaining records of such usage.

Small Mobile Businesses

5. COMMENT: For a mobile company, the 15 pounds per day limit, over a 30-day period, could restrict activity or put it out of business. Mo st boatyards have basically informed mobile companies that business canno t be carried out as usual. If eighty-five percent of the work is done on a mobile basi s, it is a severe impact on business. It could cost tens of thousands of dollars in equipm ent and modifications to comply. It could be like another California of several years ago, as significant number of companies, marine repair businesses, went out of business. Th ese are pretty significant changes to the industry, and it’s happening very quickly. More time is needed to be able to mold the businesses around the regulation an d try to conform with it.

RESPONSE: The purpose of this action is to a dopt the requirements of the EPA‘s Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for mi scellaneous metal and plastic parts which include controls for pleasure craft coating operations. EPA develops CTGs as guidance on control requirements for source categories. States can follow the CTGs or adopt more restrictive standards. Maryland is required to adopt the federal CTG into the Code of Maryland Regulations and has worked closely w ith affected stakeholders and association representatives to develop a re gulation that addressed industr y concerns and incorporated stakeholder recommendations.

EPA estimated the economic impact of th is regulation on a national level. Cost effectiveness is approximately $1,800/ton of VOC controlled. The standards and requirements of the CTG have already been im plemented in other states and as a result cost of production of compliant coatings has been dramatically reduced from the initial phase of implementation. The availability a nd performance of new, compliant products have increased as well. As more states a dopt regulations for the pleasure craft coating CTGs the costs of compliant coatings are expe cted to be reduced fu rther and therefore not posing as great an economic burden upon businesses.

### July 18, 2012

Deborah Rabin Regulations Coordinator Air and Radiation Management Administration Dept. of Environment 1800 Washington Blvd. Suite 730 Baltimore, MD 21230

- 1720 drabin@mde.state.md.us

RE: Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Pleasure Craft Coatings Operations

Dear Ms. Rabin,

The American Coatings Association (ACA) 1 

### appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the above referenced rulemaking. We would like to thank th Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) for allowing monthl y averaging of the actual VOC emissions. While we believe that yearly or seasonal averaging would allow boat yards the greatest amount of flexibility we appreciate MDE’s efforts to address industry concerns

. We incorporate by reference our previous comment s. In addition we have one further comment.

1. Sell

- through Provision ACA urges MDE to include a sell through provision in the proposed regulation. S ell

- through provisions are intended to provide a smooth transition to a new emission standard by allowing businesses to sell, for a limited period of time, their inventories of noncomplying products that still exist on the effective date of the new standard. ACA suggests a sell through provision of 1 year be added to the proposed regulation.

Please do not he sitate to contact us with any questions.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ /s/

Marie Hobson John Hopewell Counsel, Government Affairs Asst. Director, Environmental Affairs

- Submitted Electronically

-

1 ACA is a voluntary, non

- profit tra de 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 serve s as an advocate and ally for members on legislative, regulatory and judicial issues, and provides forums for the advancement and promotion of the industry through educational and professional development services.