SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST (in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51

- App. V)

SIP Submitted by: Maryland Department of the Environment

Date Submitted: January 10, 2013 Subject: Adoption of the recommended requirement s of the Environmental Protection Agency Control Technique G uidelines for

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts by adding new Regulation . 27

- 1 under COMAR 26.11.19 V olatile Organic Compounds from S pecific Processes.

Completeness Review Completed by: Gr egory Becoat /s/ Date Completed: April 4 , 2013

Administrative Materials

ACCEPTABLE

EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

1. A form al letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof. 1. Letter dated January 10, 2013 from Robert M. Summers

, Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to Shawn Garvin, Regional A d ministrator

, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. X

2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement

in final form. That evidence shall include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/issuance date. 2. The State has submitted evidence that the regulations were adopted and approved in final form on October 22, 2012 , with an

effective dat e of November 1 2, 2012

. X

3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan. 3. The regulations were issued pursuant to Maryland Environment Article, §§1

- 101, 1

- 404, 2

- 101

– 2

- 103, 2

- 301

— 2

- 303, 1 0

- 102, and 10

- 103, Annotated Code of Maryland; XEPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/document signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible,

be indicated in the document itself. 4. A copy of the proposed rule was published in the Maryland Register on June 15, 2012 , and the final rule was published in the Maryland Register on November 2, 2012 with an effective date

of November 1 2, 2012

. The Ja nuary 10, 2013 submittal from MDE included a copy of the actual regulation. X

5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan

. 5. The submittal include: t he letter from Robert M. Summers, Secretary, MDE submitted on January 10, 2013 ; a copy of notice printed in the November 2, 2012 edition of the Maryland Register ( Volume 39, Issue 22 ) ; and c op ies and certification of public h earing notices. X

6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice. 6. Notice of public hearing and public comment period was published on MDE website from May 11, 2012

– July 18, 2012, Maryland Register on June 15, 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 1 5, 2012, Salisbury Daily Times on June 15, 2012, and Cecil Whig on June 15, 2012. A hearing transcript is also provided. X

7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's l aws and constitution, if applicable. 7. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2012 in accordance with State laws as evidenced by hearing transcript and letter

dated January 10, 2013 from Robert M. Summers, Secretary,

MDE , to Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Admi nistrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. X

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto. 8. All public comments received were addressed. XTechnical Materials

EPA REQU IREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan. 1. The submittal identifies volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as the regulated pollutant affected by the plan. X

2. Identification o f the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s). 2. State of Maryland.

X

3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable em issions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through

calculations of the differences between certain bas eline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision. 3. Not applicable. The regulation established level of control for pleasure craft coating operations recommended by EPA’s

CTG

. X

4. The State's demonstration that the nation al ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented. 4. The SIP revision consists of adding a new Regulation .27

- 1 under COMAR 26.11.19 in order to adopt reasonably available control technology (RACT) regulations consistent with the level of control recommended by the CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. X

5. Modeling info rmation required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used, ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used, justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other

inf ormation relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis. 5. Not applicable. No modeling demonstration was required to support the required revision. X

6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on

continuou s emission reduction technology. 6. Not applicable. XEPA REQU IREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels. 7. The regulation established r equirements to limit VOCs from pleasure craft coating operations as recommended in EPA’s

CTG

. X

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice. 8. Not applicable. X

9. Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies. (If a policy is not appropriate, explain why.) 9. No special justifications are required. X

10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the re levant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. 10. Not applicable because this is not a section 107 request. X