SUPPLEMENTAL BASIS STATEMENT

CHAPTER 129 SURFACE COATING FACILITIES

APRIL 2015

Commenters:

1. Anne Arnold

U.S. EPA Region 1

Boston, MA

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

1. Comment: Maine proposes applicability threshold values as tons per year. The EPA 

control technique guidelines (CTG) for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings (MMPPC) recommends using “tons per 12-month rolling period” rather than 

“tons per year.” The “per year” period could be interpreted multiple ways, while the 12-

month rolling period allows for compliance determinations to be made on a monthly 

basis rather than waiting for a year’s worth of records to accumulate. EPA recommends 

changing all “per year” applicability thresholds to “per 12-month rolling period.”

The Department agrees that using the phrase “per 12-month rolling period” is more 

precise than the term “per year” and provides greater consistency with other 

Department rules. As noted by the commenter a 12-month rolling average helps to 

reduce uncertainty and allows for more timely compliance determinations. The 

Department has made the suggested changes to Chapter 129.

2. Comment: Section 1.E. paragraph 4 exempts “Facilities subject to the National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants . . .” Since a facility may have 

more than one type of operation, this paragraph could inappropriately exempt an 

entire facility if just one of its operations meets the criteria. Therefore, Maine should 

changes the word “Facility” to “Coating units, lines or operations.”

Also, in the past Maine has addressed shipbuilding, aerospace, and wood furniture 

coating operations through Chapter 134, “Reasonably Available Control Technology 

for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.” Specifically, the single source 

SIP revisions issued by Maine DEP and approved by EPA into the Maine SIP, for 

some specific facilities. Therefore it is not clear how Chapter 129 and Chapter 134 

are now intended to work together. 

The Department agrees that the language should be clarified to indicate that only 

the coating units, lines, or operations subject to the National Emissions Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants are excluded from Chapter 129. The Department has 

made the suggested changes. 
Maine will continue to address VOC emissions through both this Chapter and the 

RACT requirements found in Chapter 134; entities subject to both chapters must 

meet both sets of requirements; also previously approved single source SIP revisions 

will remain an enforceable part of Maine’s SI.P

.

3. Comment: Section 1.E. paragraph 5 exempts “any facility subject to stricter emissions 

standards.” There are several issues with this proposed exemption. First, similar to 

comment 2, an entire facility should not be exempted based upon a single operation. In 

addition, this exemption does not require that the stricter standard be federally 

enforceable. Further, the exemption fails to specify any criteria to determine how 

“stricter emissions standards” are to be determined. Facilities should be required to 

continue to comply with existing requirements and be subject to the new Chapter 129 

requirements. For all of these reasons, Maine should remove the exemption in paragraph 

1.E.5.

The Department agrees with the commenter that this was unclear and has removed the 

exemption as suggested. 

4. On page 12, proposed Section 4.F.1 states, “If two or more emissions rates conflict 

the rate more specific to the operation shall apply, if neither rate is more specific to 

the operation then the more stringent standard shall apply.” However, the beginning 

of Section 4, on page 10, states, “If more than on surface coating category and 

emissions limitation applies to a specific coating operation, then the least stringent 

emissions limitation controls.” The latter sentence appropriately allows for specialty

coating categories. Therefore, Maine should delete the sentence quoted on page 12.

The Department agrees that a conflict exists between the language on pages 10 and 

12, it further agrees that the language on page 10 is the appropriate for resolving

two conflicting emissions rates and has deleted the sentence on page 12.

5. In Section 4.F., Maine proposes to replace its existing miscellaneous metal parts and 

products surface coatings emissions limits with new categories and limits based on 

the 2008 MMPPC CTG. While the new limits become effective January 1, 2016 the 

proposed regulation does not retain its existing SIP approved limits for 

miscellaneous metal parts and products, which must remain in effect until January 1, 

2016. EPA recommends that Maine retain its existing limits. 

The Department has retained the existing limits until January 1, 2016, when the new 

limits become effective.

6. In Table 3, “Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts VOC 

Content Limits,” Maine proposes a fog coat category limit of 0.35 kg VOC/liter 

coating. However, the MMPPC CTG recommends a limit of 0.26 kg VOC/liter for 

this category. 

The Department has corrected the fog coat limit to reflect EPA’s guidance.
7. In Table 4, “Pleasure Craft Surface Coating VOC Emission Rate Limits” Maine’s 

proposed limits for the Extreme High Gloss Topcoat and Other Substrate antifouling 

are less stringent than the EPA CTG for MMPPC operations. In addition Maine is 

propose an Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coating category with a less stringent limit than 

the CTG other substrate antifouling category.

The values in table 4 are based upon the Department’s consultation with industry 

and their inability to reasonably meet the emissions rate specified in the 2008 

MMPPC CTG. In their June 1, 2010 memorandum entitled “Control Technique 

Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings – Industry Request 

for Reconsideration” EPA encouraged American Coating Association (ACA) to 

work with state agencies to adopt appropriate requirements, and emphasized that 

state agencies are free to take approaches that differ from the CTG for the pleasure 

craft coating industry. Maine understood the EPA response to provide sufficient 

leeway in the implementation of the CTG to allow for the development of differing 

requirements for the pleasure craft industry. Maine consulted with industry and 

determined that for the purpose of functionality, cost and VOC emissions, the 

alternative limits adopted constitute RACT, consistent with the above-mentioned 

EPA memorandum. The proposed standards are generally consistent with those 

adopted by other states, including New Hampshire and Connecticut, and approved 

by EPA. 

8. In table 4, “Pleasure Craft Surface Coating VOC Content Limits” Maine proposes a 

finish primer/surfacer coating limit “effective until December 31, 2015” and then a 

lower limit “Effective on January 1, 2016.” These dates are inconsistent with the 

January 1, 2016 effective date for pleasure craft coating limits established in 

Paragraph 4.F.(1). Maine should revise the rule such that the provisions containing 

compliance dates for pleasure craft primer/surfacer coating category are consistent.

The Department has revised its rule to provide that all emissions limits will take 

effect on January 1, 2016.

9. Maine proposes to delete Section 9 Compliance Schedule which states “The owner 

or operator of a surface coating unit, line or operation subject to this Chapter shall 

achieve final compliance with this Chapter on or before May 31, 1995.” Although 

the newly proposed MMPPC limits are to be effective January 1, 2006 [sic], the 

other limits in the rule are currently effective and have been previously approved 

into the Maine SIP. Therefore Maine should update Section 9 to include reference to 

the later compliance dates for some categories, but the entire provision should not be 

deleted. 

Section 9 has been retained and amended to reflect that existing standards are still 

applicable and establishes a future compliance schedule. 

10. Maine proposed emissions limits for MMPPC operations are generally consistent 

with EPA’s 2008 MMPPC CTG. However, the proposed limits for certain specialty 
coatings are less stringent than Maine’s existing SIP-approved rule. Therefore when 

Maine submits the revised rule to the EPA as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision, the state should address the anti-backsliding provisions of Section 110(1) of 

the Clean Air Act.

Maine’s Chapter 129: Surface Coating Facilities was previously approved by EPA 

on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30216) and contained 5 VOC limits for miscellaneous 

metal parts and products. Maine’s amendment to Chapter 129 expands coverage 

from Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products to also include Miscellaneous Plastics 

Parts and Products, Automotive/Transportation and Business Machines Plastic 

Parts, Pleasure Craft Surface Coating, and Motor Vehicle Materials; containing 

between 8 and 25 different emission limits. Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 

includes limitations for Air Dried and Baked Coatings, with most limitations for 

Baked Coatings being more strenuous than those for Air Dried Coatings. The 

proposed amendments also allow for low-VOC coatings to be used in combination 

with air pollution control equipment to reduce VOC emissions. These limits are 

generally consistent with EPA’s 2008 MMPC CTG (EPA-453/R-08-003 September 

2008); while certain specialty coating categories have higher limits than the 

previously approved regulation, the proposed rule includes many stricter limitations, 

including general one part and multi component coatings.

1 Further as discussed 

above, the proposed rule expands VOC limitation to additional processes and 

provides multiple limitations for baked coatings that are more stringent than air 

dried coatings. Since general coatings are applied at a higher rate than specialty 

coatings, other specialty coatings limitations are lower than the existing rule, and 

additional sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) will be controlled by the 

proposed amendment fewer VOCs will be emitted in Maine as a result of the 

proposed amendment. This approach is consistent with the EPA guidance 

memorandum entitled “Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT 

Requirements for Certain Coating Categories” from Scott Mathias to Regional Air 

Directors dated March 11, 2011. Therefore, the rule satisfies the anti-backsliding 

requirements found in Section 110(1) of the Clean Air Act.

 

1 From 0.36 kg/l as all other coatings in the approved rule to 0.34 kg/l or 0.28 kg/l depending on 

application method for general one part coatings and 0.34 kg/l for general multi part coating in the 

proposed amendment.