!" "#$%&'()*"+&"+&!$,-.')*"+#& /001&

2'!3.'+%&!$,*#)$!4&5".-2$&0/4&*##-$&604&2"+%'34&%$($27$!&/4&68/0& (4) The monomer VOC emission rate for the neat (unfilled) resin, before filler is added, PV
u, shall be calculated using the formulas in the following table: Monomer VOC Emission Rate Formulas for Open Molding and Gel Coat Operations Material Application Method Formula to calculate the monomer VOC emission
rate 1
Production resin or tooling resin Atomized resin

application 0.014 x (Resin

VOC%) 2.425
Atomized resin application, plus vacuum bagging with roll-out 0.01185 x (Resin

VOC%) 2.425

Atomized resin application, plus vacuum bagging without roll-out 0.00945 x (Resin

VOC%) 2.425

Nonatomized resin application 0.014 x (Resin

VOC%) 2.425
Nonatomized resin application plus vacuum bagging with roll-out 0.0110 x (Resin

VOC%) 2.275

Nonatomized resin application plus vacuum bagging without roll-out 0.0076 x (Resin

VOC%) 2.275

Pigmented gel coat, clear g el coat, tooling gel coat All methods 0.445 x (Gel coat VOC%) 1.675

1 Where the resin VOC percent is the monomer VOC content as supplied, expressed as a weight-percent value between 0 and 100 percent. (5) A person meeting the alternative emission rates in §C(2) of this regulation shall demonstrate the as-applied non-monomer VOC content of resins and gel coats using the test method prescribed in COMAR 26.11.19.02D(1), and for this purpose, resins and gel coats shall be considered coatings. (6) For the purpose of demonstrating that a cleanup material is a non-VOC cleanup material, a person shall:

(a) Perform a test using the method prescribed in COMAR 26.11.19.02D(1), where the cleanup material shall be considered a coating; and

(b) Determine the composite vapor pressure of organiccompounds in a cleanup material using the calculation prescribed in COMAR 26.11.19.02E(3). E. Record Keeping. A person who owns or operates a fiberglass boat manufacturing facility subject to this regulation shall maintain for not less than 3 years, and shall make available to the Departmen t upon request, records that provide the following information: (1) A description of each polyester or vinylester resin material used including: (a) The manufacturer ’

s name; (b) The type (e.g. production resin, production gel coat, tooling resin, tooling gel coat); (c) The amount of each of the polyester or vinylester resin materials used; (d) The weight (in percent) of monomer for each polyester resin materials and filler or fillers used; (e) The weight percent of VOC that is not monomer or the total weight percent of the VOC content; and (f) The type of application method used with each resin; (2) On a quarterly basis, the total weight and the monomer content and VOC content of each polyester and vinylester resin material; (3) On a quarterly basis, the total weight and the monomer content and VOC content of each polyester and vinylester resin material used under the exemption of §C(3)(a) of this regulation, including a description or identification (military specifications, 46 CFR Subchapter Q, or 46 CFR subchapter T) of the exemption; (4) On a monthly basis, the total weight, monomer content, and VOC content of each polyester and vinylester resin material used for closed molding under the exemption of §C(3)(d) of this regulation; (5) On a monthly basis, the total weight, monomer content, and VOC content of each pure,100-percent vinylester resins used under the exemption of §C(3)(b) of this regulation; (6) On a monthly basis the total weight of all resins used; (7) On a monthly basis the total weight of pure, 100-percent vinylester resins used under the exemption of §C(3)(b) of this regulation over the preceding 12 months divided by total weight of all resins used over the preceding 12 months; (8) On a daily basis, the total weight, monomer content, and VOC content of each resin used for touch up and repair of parts or molds under the exemption of §C(3)(c) of this regulation; (9) For filled resins for which compliance is demonstrated under alternative compliance option of §C(2) of this regulation: (a) The total weight and non-monomer VOC content of each polyester and vinylester resin material used; and (b) The monomer emission rate computed in accordance with §D(3) of this regulation in kg monomer VOC per megagram of filled resin as applied; and (10) On a monthly basis the total clean-up materials used.
ROBERT M. SUMMERS, Ph.D. Secretary of the Environment


# #9:;<;=>&//&'*!&?-'.*)3& 6@A//AB0&.CD&$E<FF<CGF&5>H<I=>& JCKJLE&

Authority: Environment Article, §§1-404, 2-102, 2-103 , 2-301, 2-1102, and 2-

1103, Annotated Code of Maryland
+C;<I>&CM& JCNCF>O&'I;<CG& [14-351-P-I] The Secretary of the Environment proposes to amend Regulation A86 under ("2'!&6@A//AB0&.CD&$E<FF<CGF&5>H<I=>& JCKJLE

.

#;L;>E>G;&CM& 9JNCF>& The purpose of this action is to update the Incorporation by Reference documents to reflect the changes made to the California regulations since their last update. These amendments will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a revision to Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Background Vehicles sold in the United States must be certified under one of two certification programs: the federal program (Tier 2) or the California program (the Clean Car Program). Section 177 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 states the ability to adopt the California program in lieu of the federal program as long as the adopted state program is identical to the California program and the state allows 2 model years lead time from adoption to implementation. The Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007 required the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to adopt regulations!" "#$%&'()*"+&"+&!$,-.')*"+#&

/00P&

2'!3.'+%&!$,*#)$!4&5".-2$&0/4&*##-$&604&2"+%'34&%$($27$!&/4&68/0& implementing the California Clean Car Program (also referred to as the California Low Emissions Vehicle Program (Cal LEV) in Maryland. Maryland’s implementing regulations adopted, through incorporation by reference, the applicable California regulations. The Cal LEV program is a dynamic, changing program in which many of the relevant California regulations are continuously updated. To retain California’s standards, Maryland must remain consistent with their regulations, hence when California updates its regulations, Maryland must reflect these changes by amending our regulations. The proposed changes are in effect in California as well as some of the other states that have adopted the Cal LEV program. The only regulatory change in this proposed action is to the ZEV portion of the regulation. It will have minimal, if any, impact on the cost or implementation of the program in Maryland. Reference updates to the incorporated by reference documents have also been included.

Sources Affected and Location These amendments apply to automobile manufacturers that produce new motor vehicles for sale in Maryland. All vehicle types that have a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 14,000 pounds are affected.

Requirements These amendments update Maryland’s program requirements to be consistent with California’s program requirements. T his action is necessary since many of the California regulations that are incorporated into the Maryland regulation have been updated. These individual regulatory changes can be grouped into 3 areas: •Adjustments to the optional Section 177 state complianc e path (OCP). •Maintain a minimum ZEV credit requirement for manufacturers for each model year. •Amend the fast refueling definition for determining ZEV types. These changes are described in greater detail in the Technical Support Document for this action. The biggest change that will affec t Maryland is the elimination of certain credits from being used to meet the OCP requirements. Manufacturers will only be allowed to meet the requirements from credits generated by vehicles actually placed in the state, which was the original intent of the OCP as negotiated with the manufacturers.

Expected Emissions Reductions The changes to the ZEV portion of the regulation may have a small positive impact on the benefits, as it is designed to ensure more ZEVs are actually delivered to the Section 177 States in order to comply with the OCP. The emissions impact is expected to be minimal though, as the manufacturer fleet average emission requirement remains the same.

(CENLJ<FCG&;C&Q>O>JL=&#;LGOLJOF& There is no corresponding federal standard to this proposed action.

$F;<EL;>&CM&$ICGCE<I&*ENLI;& *A	EELJR&CM&$ICGCE<I&*ENLI;A& Minimal additional burden or cost is expected as a result of these amendments. The changes to the OCP, and maintaining a minimum ZEV credit requirement will require manufacturers to introduce more actual ZEVs to Maryland and the other Section 177 states. However, provisions to allow pooling across states and from the east and west regions from different model years will give manufacturers greater flexibility to meet the regulatory requirements in a way that is best for their business situation. These amendments will have no economic impact on the Department. They also will have no impact on the Motor Vehicle Administration’s registration, data management, and dealer oversight activities related to this program.

Revenue (R+/R-) **A&)RN>F&CM&$ICGCE<I& *ENLI;A& 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: (+) Minimal
E. On other industries or trade groups: NONE F. Direct and indirect effects on public: (1) Cost to Consumers (+) Minimal (2) Health/Environmental Benefits (+) Indeterminable ***A&'FF9EN;<CGFA (Identified by Impact Letter and Number from Section II.) D. These amendments should have no impact on Maryland dealers. The increase in ZEVs that will result from this amendment will be minimal, and enable the dealers to provide consumers with more of the most advanced and fuel efficient technology vehicles available. F(1). The economic impact to Maryland consumers is minimal as there are no significant changes to the vehicle requirements. F(2). Indirectly, the implementation of this program will benefit the public by helping to improve Maryland’s air quality and will result in fewer negative health effects on the general public fro m air pollution.

$ICGCE<I&*ENLI;&CG&#EL==&79F<G>FF>F& The proposed action has minimal or no economic impact on sm all businesses.
*ENLI;&CG&*GO<S<O9L=F&D<;H&%<FL:<=<;<>F& The proposed action has no impact on individuals with disabilities.

"NNCJ;9G<;R&MCJ& 9:=<I&(CEE>G;& The Department of the Environment will hold a public hearing on the proposed action on January 7, 2015 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 Mr. Randy Mosier, Chief of the Regulation Division, Air and Radiation Management Administration, Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 730, Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1720, or email to randy.mosier@maryland.gov. Comments must be received not later than January 7, 2015, or be submitted at the hearing. For more information, call Randy Mosier at (410) 537-4488.!" "#$%&'()*"+&"+&!$,-.')*"+#& /00T&

2'!3.'+%&!$,*#)$!4&5".-2$&0/4&*##-$&604&2"+%'34&%$($27$!&/4&68/0& Copies of the proposed action and supporting documents are available for review at the following locations: • The Department of the Environment’s website at: http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/regulations/air/Pages/req comments.aspx • The Air and Radiation Management Administration; and • Regional offices of the Department in Cumberland and Salisbury. 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.

Editor ’ s Note on Incorporation by Reference Pursuant to State Government Article, §7-207, Annotated Code of Maryland, the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 13 Motor Vehicles, Division 3 Air Resources Board, Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4.4 has been declared a document generally available to the public an d appropriate for incorporation by reference. For this reason, it will not be printed in the Maryland Register or the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). Copies of this document are filed in special public depositories located throughout the State. A list of these depositories was published in 41:1 Md. R. 9 (January 10, 2014), and is available online at www.dsd.state.md.us. The document may also be inspected at the office of the Division of State Documents, 16 Francis Street, Annapolis, Maryland 21401.

A86&*GICJNCJL;<CG&:R&!>M>J>GI>A&& A. (text unchanged) B. Documents Incorporated. (1)

— (8) (text unchanged) (9) Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 2, §1962.1 Zero-Emission Vehicle Standards for 2009 through 2017 Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, as effective U December 31, 2012 V July 10, 2014

. (10) Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 2, §1962.2 Zero-Emission Vehicle Standards for 2018 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, as effective U December 31, 2012 V& July 10, 2014

. (11) ─(33 ) (text unchanged) (34) Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 3, Chapter 2, Article 2.1, §2111 Applicability, as effective U August 16, 2009 V& December 8, 2010

. (35) ─(45) (text unchanged) (46) Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 3, Chapter 2, Article 2.2, §2122 General Provisions, as effective U January 4, 2008 V& December 8, 2010

. (47) ─(59) (text unchanged) (60) Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 3, Chapter 2, Article 2.3, §2136 General Provisions, as effective U January 4, 2008 V& December 8, 2010

. (61) ─(64) (text unchanged) (65) Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 3, Chapter 2, Article 2.4, §2141 General Provisions, as effective U January 4, 2008 V& December 8, 2010

. (66) ─(78) (text unchanged) (79) Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 3, Chapter 4.4, §2235 Requirements, as effective August U 7 V& 8 , 2012.
ROBERT M. SUMMERS, PH.D. Secretary of the Environment 

# #9:;<;=>&//&'*!&?-'.*)3& **26.11.38 Control of NO x** 

## Emissions from Coal**Fired Electric Generating Units**

Authority: Environment Article, §§1-404, 2-103, and 2-3 01

— 2-303,

Annotated Code of Maryland
+C;<I>&CM& JCNCF>O&'I;<CG&

[14-349-P] The Secretary of the Environment proposes to adopt new Regulations A8/WA8@ under a new chapter, ("2'!& 6@A//ABP& (CG;JC=& CM& +" X

& $E<FF<CGF& MJCE& (CL=YQ<J>O& $=>I;J<I& ,>G>JL;<GK& -G<;F

. #;L;>E>G;&CM& 9JNCF>& The purpose of this action is to establish new nitrogen oxides (NO x ) emission standards and additional monitoring and reporting requirements for coal-fired electric generating units in Maryland. The new standards for coal-fired electric generating units in Maryland and resulting reductions in NO x emissions are needed to achieve attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and will satisfy the requirements of §182 of the federal Clean Air Act. This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fo r approval as part of Maryland’s State Implementation Plan.

Background In 2012, portions of Maryland were designated as nonattainment for the 75 parts per billion (ppb) ozone NAAQS. Ozone is produced when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO x ) react in the presence of heat and sunlight. The Department has fo und through a research partnership with the University of Maryland that NO x reductions are more effective at reducing ozone levels than VOC reductions. Under the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., sources in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above are subject to a NO x

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirement. Section 182 of the Clean Air Act requires the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to review and revise NO x RACT requirements in the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) as necessary to achieve compliance with new more stringent ambie nt air quality standards. EPA defines RACT as the lowest emissions limitation (e.g., on a part per million or pound per million Btu basis) that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application o f control technology (e.g., installation and operation of low-NO x burners) that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. In reviewing existing NO x RACT requirements for adequacy, the Department considers technological advances, the stringency of the revised ozone standard and whether new sources subject to RACT requirements are present in the nonattainment area. Maryland’s RACT SIP for the new 75 ppb ozone standard must examine existing controls on major sources of NO x to determine whether additional controls are economical and technically feasible. In 2015, MDE is also required to submit an ozone attainment SIP that includes emission reduction strategies designed to achieve compliance with the 75 ppb ozone standard by 2018. Reductio ns in NO x emissions from coal-fired electric generating units on high electricity demand days during the ozone season are necessary to achieve compliance with the 75 ppb standard and will also be necessary to achieve compliance with the more stringent ozone standard EPA is expected to propose in December 2014. The measures required by this proposed action to reduce NO x emissions