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 Users 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 
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

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 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. 

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 Subpart 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 business 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 

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, 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 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 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 

1 
standards, 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 performance 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; Antifouling 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 

been 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. 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 meet the standards and requirements 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 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 requires 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 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 surface preparation also occur at facilities 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 ozone season when VOCs 

readily combine with NOx to form the pollutant ground level ozone. 

Comparison to Federal Standards 

The amendments and proposed regulation adopt the requirements in EPA’s CTG for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, EPA -453/R-08-003, September 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, the Department, other State Agencies, Local 

Government, other Industries or Trade Groups, the Public 

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 implemented 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. 

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 the U.S. EPA for approval as a revision to 

Maryland's State Implementation Plan. 

Appendixes

Appendix A - American 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 

Appendix B – June 1, 2010 EPA memorandum on Control Technique Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings – Industry request for reconsideration 

 
Appendix C – Stakeholder Comments 

Appendix D – Maryland Department of the Environment email correspondence with 

stakeholders 

 
Appendix A

American 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 

 
American 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/FSCT- the predecessor of the 

American Coatings Association) 

May `17, 2010 

Introduction 

We do not agree with the EPA’s recommendation 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 September 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 recently, 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 Technology” (RACT). A CTG represents EPA’s 

recommendations to be adopted by the States in their federally-mandated State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs). As such, CTGs have a long tradition of careful selection of 

existing technologies only after extensive review. 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 opportunity 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 the 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 coatings- and has sent a clarification to EPA to 

that effect. 

1
We wish to make clear that our comments here 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 

documents1

: 

 

“BARCT is a state version of RACT, although 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 California 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 limits originally mandated were technologically 

infeasible2

. 

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 Rule 1106.1 to be unsuitable for reference as 

RACT, and highlights the impact its implementation by non-attainment states and areas will 

have on the economy and pleasure craft building and surface coating industry. 

 

In light of the significant changes that the EPA made to the draft 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 restrictive 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 Coast’s pleasure craft business since it was 

introduced in 1992. In the 1970’s and 80’s, California 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 Yachts, Laguna Yachts, Westsail, 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

 

2
pleasure craft rules such as Rule 1106.1 into Air Quality Districts like the South Coast has 

been a pivotal factor to these builders either moving 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 which 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 craft 

owners 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 conceivable 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

3
Florida 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 statements to prevent applicability to small boat 

owners / users, i.e. the Do-It-Yourself (DIY) market. 

 

Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1106 provides an exemption 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 exclusion for coating of pleasure craft or 

commercial fishing vessels using coatings purchased 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 restricting the VOC levels of pleasure craft coatings 

and is not necessary for adoption in non-attainment 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 situations 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). Further 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 the 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 sector in the US. The growth rate of the repair 

market (as seen over the last 10 years) has been 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 sector, including charter business, 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 supply pleasure craft related projects. 

Florida is a good example of how important economically the pleasure craft sectors are. The 

Florida market relies on competitive 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 superyacht 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 follows4

: 

• 46% of routine maintenance projects in Tri-County boatyards were from non-U.S.-

based vessels during 2006 alone. Over half of major overhaul projects were 

completed on foreign yachts at Tri-County boatyards. 

• Each of the 1400 superyachts 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 approximately $30.6 million in 2006; twice that 

of 1997. 

• One 164-foot charter vessel will have direct 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 multitude 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 VOC limits contained within Rule 1106.1 

will significantly limit any competitive advantages for US pleasure craft builders with cost, 

technical, and aesthetic requirements severely compromised. 

 

4 Source: Growth, current activity and Economic Impacts of Mega Yachts in South Florida 1997 – 2007. 

T.J Murray & Associates, prepared on behalf of Marine Industries Association of South Florida and the 

Broward Alliance 

5

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

5
Setting Rule 1106.1 as RACT for pleasure craft coatings 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 emissions permits pleasure craft builders and painters 

more flexibility by allowing them to operate an “averaging” 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 certain 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 with compatible high VOC extreme gloss topcoats to deliver a 

solution that is competitive, durable and best meets the customer’s expectations. 

In Asia there is little VOC legislation to restrict 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 approach 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 operations is to offer facilities the option to average emissions 

over a specified time period (in the case of the European rules, the time period is a year). 

This provides flexibility to coatings manufacturers and end-use customers, to allow VOC 

emission reductions while minimizing adverse impacts on each facility. 

This approach requires affected facilities to maintain an inventory of all products used in their 

surface coating operations, including any additional 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 specified time period would be maintained at or 

below the level defined by the EPA, in consultation with the pleasure craft industry. A 

properly-vetted averaging approach could replace the current CTG category-and-limit 

approach, or it could be offered as an alternative 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 industry 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 continued success of the multi-billion dollar US pleasure 

craft industry that more time is provided for paint manufacturers to develop and introduce 

6
lower-VOC coatings, and for customers to adjust 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 realistic 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 coating users have sufficient time to implement the 

necessary procedural changes required to work with low VOC products. Users will also want 

to have flexibility in choice of coating products 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 manufacturers sufficient time to register any new low 

VOC antifouling coatings under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA) and corresponding State programs that regulate 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 industry 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 (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 achieve such effects, products with a higher solvent 

content (lower solids content) are required for both the topcoats and the primers which go 

beneath them. Introducing high 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 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 meet 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 category should be revised from 420 g/L to 600 g/L. 

3. Permanent changes required to Rule 1106.1 

7
In 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 the 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 biocide-free, non-stick foul release 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 higher 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 coating 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 contribution. 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/L7

 as is the CTG8 which 

covers the same sector. South Coast AQMD Rule 1106 which applies to Marine coating 

operations also contains a VOC limit for antifouling 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 that 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 Pollutants from Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) Operations 

8

 Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating) 

8
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. 

Additionally, some low VOC topcoats, originating from the car refinish market and now being 

marketed for pleasure craft usage, are based on a polymer type which 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. 

The aesthetic properties that topcoats give to the topsides of pleasure craft are of primary 

importance to boat owners. This should not be underestimated or dismissed. 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 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 the majority of non-attainment 

areas where the problem is ‘Moderate’ according to the EPA. The industry feels that 

restricting the VOC of the other coating categories 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 does 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 Topcoats 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 operations in the US. Pleasure craft coating 

manufacturers have submitted a substantial amount 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 coating 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 therefore 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 safeguard 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 regulate 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 using pleasure craft coatings 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 coatings 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 Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and 

Plastic Part Coatings – Industry 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 

Title 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 

Susan Zellers and I am the executive director of 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 pounds per day of VOC emissions threshold. MTAM and 

its members are concerned of the upper limit daily constraints. 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 

spring 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 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 guideline 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 USEPA’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 residents of Maryland whom 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 

RACT proposal with an averaging approach to daily limits. 

Sincerely,

Susan Zellers

Executive Director

P.O. Box 3148, Annapolis, Maryland 21403 – 410-269-0741 – info@mtam.org
Excerpt from the American Coatings Association (ACA) on the RACT proposal to meet USEPA’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 pleasure craft surface coating 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 apparently done with concern that pleasure craft 

surface coating operations might 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 Craft Surface Coating operations in 

Maryland should address the 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. Provision of appropriate time until the final compliance date to allow the development, testing, and 

commercial introduction of low-VOC pleasure craft coatings. Rushing products 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 of four years is suggested to allow completion of existing 

development projects to bring lower-VOC pleasure craft coatings to the US market.
3. Revision of the categories and VOC limits from the CTG to address current and future product 

developments in the pleasure 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 Subpart II ). This process may result in a revised Subpart II MACT Standard and/or a 

new Area Source Standard for HAPs emissions from Pleasure Craft Surface Coating operations. 

Coatings manufacturers have already provided 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 pleasure craft industry was not afforded the usual opportunity to consult with EPA during the 

development of the EPA CTG. We therefore feel it is imperative to work with EPA, its Regional Offices, 

and State and Local agencies to develop RACT rules that provide reductions in VOC emissions, while 

meeting the performance and productivity requirements of an important US industry that is under 

increasing pressure from economic 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 Processes: Metal Pleasure Craft 

Coatings Operations in Maryland

Dear Ms. Rabin,

The American Coatings Association (ACA)1appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on 

the above referenced rulemaking. We would like to take this opportunity to address several 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 wrote in a memo, dated 

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

standards. We applaud Maryland for accepting this stance however it appears that the standards for 

VOC levels fall 10g/L short on several 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 gloss 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-treatment Wash Primer Definition Missing

In a related matter, the 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: “PreTreatment Wash Primer means a coating which contains no more than 25 percent solids, by weight, and 

at least 0.1 percent acids, by weight; is used to provide surface etching; and is applied directly to 

 

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 advancement and promotion of the industry through 

educational and professional development services.
fiberglass and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent 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 electrostatic spray coating, flow coat, dip coat (including 

electrodeposistion) and autophoretic. While the inclusion in and 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. Further, 

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 suggests that Maryland 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 

respectfully request the inclusion of brush, airless spray, and air assisted airless spray – as well as HVLP

and rollers.

5. Affected Sources

The ACA urges Maryland to follow Connecticut’s (a fellow OTC state) pleasure craft CTG, which

much like Maryland, has a large pleasure 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 will 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 operator 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 premises 855 gallons or more of coatings 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 spring 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 

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 an averaging approach or yearly total be adopted”.
6. Fiberglass Boat CTG

It is our understanding that Maryland intends to propose a separate rulemaking 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 Hobson

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 Plastic Parts CTG to form a RACT standard for the 

pleasure craft coatings industry are summarized 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

Aluminum 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: Extreme High Gloss coating means any coating which achieves greater than 

90 percent reflection on a 60° meter when tested by ASTM Method D523-89

* * Revised definition required: Pre-Treatment Wash Primer means a coating which contains no more than 

25 percent solids, by weight, and at least 0.1 percent acids, by weight; is used to provide surface etching; 

and is applied directly to fiberglass and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of 

subsequent coatings.

The following sections provide 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 solids 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 

practices 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, higher 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 significant 

sum of money into owning his yacht and the quality of the final appearance is its ‘crowning glory’. If boat 

owners cannot achieve the desired super-glossy, mirror-like finish, they will not settle for an inferior solution –

they will simply have their boats painted elsewhere. These coatings are professionally applied so any 

restriction on their use that reduces the competitiveness of individual yards will have a direct and immediate 

bearing on employment levels and local revenues.

High solids topcoats have not been well received in the North American pleasure craft coating market. In 

general, applicators and boat owners have found the finish that these products provide to be inferior to 

traditional, higher 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 and aviation) the controlled application conditions which make the use of these coatings possible 

in those industries are neither available nor possible for the pleasure craft coating industry. Despite much 

product development activity, the lower VOC technologies 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 switch 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 uncompetitive with yards 

in other states or in other countries. 

A final point of importance is that in a typical extreme high gloss coatings scheme, the topcoat represents 

less than 40% of the overall VOC burden and less than 10% of total yacht coatings on an annualized 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 challenge 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 

acceptable 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 coating which achieves greater than 90 percent reflectance on a 

60° meter when tested by ASTM Method D 523-89”

Revised VOC limit for Other Substrates Antifoulant Coating Category

Significant time and effort have been invested by industry to develop low VOC antifouling coatings 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-volatile, effectively 

reducing the percentage of biocide in the dry film with a concomitant reduction in performance/reduced 

lifetime of the coating. This may mean more frequent application of the antifouling, potentially leading to a 

greater overall VOC impact. 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, though water-based technologies are being 

very heavily scrutinized by coatings manufacturers. In general water based coatings can only be formulated 

at low volume solids (30% compared to say 60%+ for an equivalent solvent-based system). This inevitably 

means thin films containing less biocide (which affects the performance and lifetime of the coating) 

The data below shows the performance challenge with changing VOC. Panels 1-3 (left) are all based on the 

same active package. The two rightmost panels are standard solvent based controls.

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 

contributes 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 Marine Rule 1106 applies a VOC limit for 

antifouling coatings of 400g/L. Industry believes this limit is more suitable to represent RACT for this coating 

category, given the current state of the existing technology. Certainly we find no justification in setting a limit 

lower than that applied to the National Emission Standards for HAPs for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair and 

the SCAQMD 1106 limits. The following VOC limit amendment is therefore required;

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

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 the International Maritime Organization Antifouling Systems 

convention (IMO AFS) and should be added to the categories taken from Rule 1106.1. This convention was 

ratified in 2007 and houses a list of substances banned from use in antifoulings in Annex 1. Tri Butyl Tin 

(TBT) is the first addition to Annex 1 and the use of this biocide in antifoulings on the hulls of any marine 

vessels entering the waters of countries which are signatories to the convention is controlled according to the 

requirements of Annex 1 of the AFS. A specialized coating type is required to seal in old TBT containing 

antifoulings and to promote adhesion of biocide-free, non-stick foul release coatings when 

applied to vessels. The use of biocide-free coatings brings significant environmental benefits.

 

The category should be named ‘Antifouling 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). 

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 higher 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 coating 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 definition for the category of Pretreatment Wash Primer

The current definition of Pretreatment Wash Primer in South Coast rule 1106.1 is restricting the development 

of alternative products which would be considerably less toxic to humans and the environment than those 

used currently. Products which meet the current definition for this are formulated to contain known 

carcinogens such as zinc chromate (CAS 13530-65-9) and zinc tetroxy chromate (CAS 37300-23-5)1due 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 specifically 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) and 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 Administrator (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 PRIMER means a coating which contains no more than 25 percent solids, by 

weight, and at least 0.1 percent acids, by weight; is used to provide surface etching; and is applied directly to 

fiberglass and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent coatings”

The ‘percent solids’ value must be raised form 12 to 25 to allow for an increased quantity of safer (noncarcinogenic) replacement pigment which is required for equivalent coating performance. These 

replacement formulations require a reduced level of acid to perform adequately therefore it is also necessary 

to reduce the deminimus value associated to ‘percent acids’ from 0.5 to 0.1.

Request Small Container Exemption

Many industrial and commercial coatings 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 

recoat 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 email 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 based on the number of days in the month (be it 30,31, 29, 

etc.). 

 

I'll definitely keep the group posted as the process continues. 

 

Randy 

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

Randy-

 Thank you for this information. Further to Susan’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 applicability threshold, is the monthly 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 12th – thank you for 

keeping us informed of the rule’s progress.

 Have a good weekend!

 Regards,

 John 

From: Randy Mosier [mailto:rmosier@mde.state.md.us] 

Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:43 AM 

To: Susan Zellers 

Cc: Bob Brandon; Christopher Wheeling; David Darling; Debbie Rabin; Diane Franks; Frank Winkelman; 

Dunigan, George; Husain Waheed; John Hopewell; Pazdera, John; Jonathan Jones; Kathleen Perry; Marie 

Hobson; Nancy Booth; Nolan Penney; Paul DeSantis; S. Hamilton Chaney; Scott 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

Page 1 of 6

file://C:\Documents and Settings\rmosier\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4EE21417MD... 12/19/2011
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 regulation 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@mtam.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.

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

Page 2 of 6

file://C:\Documents and Settings\rmosier\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4EE21417MD... 12/19/2011
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.

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

Page 3 of 6

file://C:\Documents and Settings\rmosier\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4EE21417MD... 12/19/2011
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:rmosier@mde.state.md.us] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 10:51 AM 

To: Randy Mosier 

Subject: Pleasure Craft Coating stakeholder group 

Page 4 of 6

file://C:\Documents and Settings\rmosier\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4EE21417MD... 12/19/2011
 

Dear Stakeholders, 

 

Thank you for taking the time to meet with the Department on November 1, 2011 regarding MDE's Pleasure 

Craft coating regulation. Receiving constructive input from affected sources and industry associations provides 

us with a much greater perspective and leads towards the development of better regulations for all involved. We 

have passed along to EPA an overview of the issues and 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 stakeholders 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 product 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 stakeholders 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 operations at marinas to be: 

 

"Coatings application occurs during a short 8-12 week period in the spring with a secondary season in October 

and November of about 4-5 weeks. A typical average output for spring season is 15-20 boats per week, and in 

the short fall season approximately 5-8 boats per week." 

 

The Department would appreciate industry input on these figures to help support any potential amendments to 

the regulation. 

 

The Department had also requested that stakeholders provide information regarding any manufacturer of 

fiberglass boats. MDE needs to determine whether these sources are meeting the applicability of EPA's fiberglass 

boat manufacturing CTG. Having a head start on this process will better allow MDE to potentially integrate the 

requirements of the fiberglass boat manufacturing CTG and the pleasure craft coating CTG, where applicable, to 

attempt to minimize confusion throughout 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 copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is 

strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the 

sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You 

 

Page 5 of 6

file://C:\Documents and Settings\rmosier\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4EE21417MD... 12/19/2011
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 copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is 

strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the 

sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You 

Page 6 of 6

file://C:\Documents and Settings\rmosier\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4EE21417MD... 12/19/2011
FINAL ACTION ON REGULATIONS

1430

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

Title 26 

DEPARTMENT 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 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

Authority: 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 

Complaint 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 Commissioner
PROPOSED 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 small 

businesses.

Impact on Individuals with Disabilities

The proposed action has an impact on individuals with disabilities 

as follows:

This action will have a positive impact on individuals with 

disabilities involving respiratory problems by reducing air pollutants 

that contribute to disease.

Opportunity for Public Comment

The Department of the Environment will hold a public hearing on 

the proposed action on 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 to 

Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator, Air and Radiation 

Management Administration, Department of the Environment, 1800 

Washington Boulevard, Suite 730, Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1720, 

or emailed to drabin@mde.state.md.us. Comments must be received 

not later than 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 

Management Administration; regional offices of the Department in 

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

local health departments in those counties not having separate air 

quality control offices.

Anyone needing special accommodations at the public hearing 

should contact the Department‘s Fair Practices Office at (410) 537-

3964. TTY users may contact the Department through the Maryland 

Relay Service at 1-800-735-2258.

.03 Ambient Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Reference 

Conditions, and Methods of Measurement. 

For the purposes of this chapter, the ambient air quality standards,

definitions, reference 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 of 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 proposes 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 Subpart 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 business 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 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, 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 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 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 standards, 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 performance 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; Antifouling 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 been 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. 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 meet the standards and 

requirements 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.
PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS

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 requires 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 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 surface preparation also occur at 

facilities 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 ozone 

season when VOCs readily combine with NOxto form the pollutant 

ground level ozone.

Comparison to Federal Standards

There is a corresponding federal standard to this proposed action, 

but the proposed action is not more restrictive or stringent.

Estimate of Economic Impact

I. Summary of Economic Impact. 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 implemented 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 

trade 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 proposed 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 to 

Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator, Air and Radiation 

Management Administration, Department of the Environment, 1800 

Washington Boulevard, Suite 730, Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1720, 

or emailed to drabin@mde.state.md.us. Comments must be received 

not later than 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 

Management Administration; regional offices of the Department in 

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

local health departments in those counties not having separate air 

quality control offices.

Anyone needing special accommodations at the public hearing 

should contact the Department‘s Fair Practices Office at (410) 537-

3964. TTY users may contact the Department through the Maryland 

Relay Service at 1-800-735-2258.

.27-1 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Pleasure Craft 

Coating Operations. 

A. Applicability and Exemptions.

(1) 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.

(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 when a valve on the container is depressed; 

(b) Coatings that are applied to:

(i) Recoat portions of a product which has sustained 

mechanical damage to the coating following normal painting 

operation; or
PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS

758

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

(ii) Cover minor coating imperfections appearing after 

the main coating operation; or

(c) Coatings or resins applied during the manufacturing 

process.

B. Definitions. 

(1) In this regulation, the following terms have the meanings 

indicated.

(2) Terms Define.

(a) “Antifouling sealer/tiecoat” means a coating applied 

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 antifouling 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 

such 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 

subsequent coatings, or a moisture barrier, or promoting 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 for 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 craft” means vessels which are manufactured 

or operated primarily 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 brush, spray, roller, or other means to a pleasure craft.

(h) “Pretreatment wash primer” means a coating which 

contains no more than 25 percent solids by weight and at least 0.1 

percent acids by weight, is used to provide surface etching, and is 

applied directly to 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 regulation except for those definitions specifically provided in 

§B(2) of this regulation.

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. Pleasure Craft Coating Standards (Expressed in Terms of Mass 

of VOC per Volume of Coating Excluding Water and Exempt 

Compounds, as Applied).

Coating Types lbs 

VOC/gal

kg 

VOC/liter 

Extreme high gloss topcoat 5.0 0.60

High gloss topcoat 3.5 0.42

Pretreatment 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/tiecoat 3.5 0.42

Other substrate 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 

applicable.

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 Environment
Marlin 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, 

Linda 

~c.~~ 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/wordpresslfasttrackl . 

LCJ:BR 

cc: Kathleen Blinebury - EPA 

I 2-0338 _NM.NEWdoc 

301 Wtst Pmton Street • Suite 1101 • Baltimore, Maryland 21201 -2305 

Telephone: 410. 6 .4500 • Fax: 410. 67.4480 • To// Free: 1.877.767. 6272 • 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) 921-5555 
2 

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) 921-5555 
4 

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) 921-5555 
7 

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) 921-5555 
8 

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) 921-5555 
9 

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) 921-5555 
11 

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 Relay Service 

 

Martin O’Malley 

Governor 

Anthony G. Brown 

Lieutenant Governor 

 May 11, 2012 

CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION 

This is to certify that the “Maryland Department of the Environment (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, Regulations Coordinator of the Air and 

Radiation Management Administration 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.

 Notice 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

HOME MARYLANDER BUSINESS RESEARCH CENTER NEWSROOM email friend print page
MDE 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 (S02) 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 (03) 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 (N02) 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... 10/24/2012 
Deborah 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 0/24/2012 

Subject: 

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 

CC: Angelo Bianca; 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 201 0 revised NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (S02) 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 (03) 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 (N02) 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... 10/24/2012 
Deborah 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... 10/24/2012 

Subject: 

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 ... 10/24/2012 
To: 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 ... 10/24/2012 
To: 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 Radiation 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 Air 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 the 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. Antifouling 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 MANAGEMENT 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 adopt Regulation .27-1 under chapter COMAR 26.11.19 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from Specific Processes. 

The proposed regulation adopts the requirements of the Environmental Protection 

Agency Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) EPA -453/R-08-003, September 2008, 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, 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 Washington Boulevard, 1st Floor Aeris 

Conference Room, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. 

Attendance: Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator, Air and Radiation Management 

Administration, served as Hearing Officer. Mr. John Dunigan, International 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 Administration, Department of the Environment. 

Comments and Responses: Comments were received from Mr. John Dunigan, 

International Paint and Marine Trade Association of Maryland 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 products 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 products 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 Environment (MDE) began informing stakeholders of 

the proposed regulation, COMAR 26.11.19.27-1, in May of 2011. MDE received 

approval for an original version of the regulation 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 stakeholder concerns. 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 additional compliant product to 

come to market and users to become familiar with their application and performance. The 

Department has worked closely with stakeholders 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 given to averaging over a period 

of 365 days as has been the case in New England states. 

RESPONSE: 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. 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 meet the standards and requirements of the 

proposed regulation. 

Under the Department’s original proposed rule published in the Maryland Register on 

August 26, 2011, the applicability threshold was established at 15 pounds or more per 

day of VOC. Based upon stakeholders comments the Department made amendments to 

the applicability section and allowed for a monthly averaging period. MDE arrived at this 

applicability threshold in consultation with EPA Region III. A monthly average would 

relax the original, tighter applicability threshold while still establishing an applicability 

that would provide meaningful emission benefits from the regulation. Due to the cyclical 

nature of pleasure craft coating in Maryland, an annual average of VOC emissions would 

not accurately reflect the true emission cycle. 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 affected 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 craft 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 regulation is January 1st, 2013. Due to the 

nature of the pleasure craft coating 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 comment #1, the Department has already 

made amendments to the effective date of the regulation to accommodate product 

development, user training and usage of existing 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 additional 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 property taxes determines whether 

the facility is VOC-compliant or not based 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 period. It puts a burden on these businesses to 

use compliant products when they are actually below the regulation. There are separate 

businesses located under one landowner and they pay separate taxes and are separate 

entities. These businesses should be considered as separate units for the applicability of 

the regulation. 

 

RESPONSE: The regulation applies to pleasure craft coating operations at premises 

where the total VOC emissions equals or exceeds 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 emissions released by the marina and all 

independent contractors performing pleasure craft coating operations on the premises for 
purposes of determining applicability 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. Most boatyards have basically 

informed mobile companies that business cannot be carried out as usual. If eighty-five 

percent of the work is done on a mobile basis, it is a severe impact on business. It could 

cost tens of thousands of dollars in equipment 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. These 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 and try to conform with it. 

RESPONSE: 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. Maryland is required to adopt the federal CTG into the Code of 

Maryland Regulations and has worked closely with affected stakeholders and association 

representatives to develop a regulation that addressed industry concerns and incorporated 

stakeholder recommendations. 

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 implemented 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 and performance of new, compliant products 

have increased as well. As more states adopt regulations for the pleasure craft coating 

CTGs the costs of compliant coatings are expected to be reduced further 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)1appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on 

the above referenced rulemaking. We would like to thank th Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) 

for allowing monthly 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 comments. In addition we have 

one further comment. 

1. Sell-through Provision

ACA urges MDE to include a sell through provision in 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 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 hesitate 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 trade association working to advance the needs of the paint and coatings industry 

and the professionals who work in it. The organization represents paint and coatings manufacturers, raw materials 

suppliers, distributors, and technical professionals. ACA serves as an advocate and ally for members on legislative, 

regulatory and judicial issues, and provides forums for the advancement and promotion of the industry through 

educational and professional development services.