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

- App. V)

SI P Submitted by : Mary land Department of the Environment (MDE) Date Submitted: November 15, 2012 Subject: Removal of 1979 Consent Order Provisions from SI P for Allegany County Board of Education (Beall Jr./Sr. High School)

Completeness Review Completed by : Sharon McCauley Date Completed: December 1 7 , 2012 **Administrative Materials ACCEPTABLE** 

**EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMI**  **TTAL (X)**  1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof. 1. L etter dated November 15, 2012 from Mr. Robert M. Summers, Secretary , MDE (the Governor’s designee) to Mr. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, EPA 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, or 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.

**Check to see if the regulation, permit, order or**  **consent decree**  **has a sunset or expiration date. If so it is not acceptable as a SIP submission.**  2. The purpose of this action is to remove the Board of Education of Allegany

County ’ s 1979 Consent Order from Maryland ’ s State Implementation Plan because the coal

- fired boiler located at Beall High School has been demolished along with the entire school.

MDE submitted proof that i n 2007
, the Beall Junior/Senior High School was demolished and replaced with a new school a t a different location (Mt. Ridge High School). The lot where the school was located is now an athletic field. The facility’s permit has since been closed out by MDE in the Air Facility System database. X

3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan. 3. The necessary legal authority

to adopt and implement this plan revision is established under § 2

- 301 et seq. of the Environment Article, Annotated Code of Mary land. X

4. A cop y of actua l regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, 4. A cop y of the Consent Order be ing removed from the MDE SI P is included with in this SI P revision submittal. X**EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMI**  **TTAL (X)** 

where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/documen t 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. 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 Department submitted proof that all State administrative procedures were properl y followed. A Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Mary land Register on June 15, 2012 and a n otice of the hearing was also provided on MDE’s website from May

11, 2012 through July

18, 2012. X

6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved b y EPA, including the date of publication of such notice. 6. On June 15, 2012, M DE announced in the Maryland Register the opportunity

for public comment and request for a public hearing. A Notice of Public Hearing was announced on MDE’s website from May

11, 2012 through July

18, 2012. Notice was also given to EPA

, Mary land County Officials, the immediate surr ounding States , and the District of Columbia, on 5/11/12 and

, all in accordance with the requirements for 40 CFR § 51.102(d). X

7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable. 7. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2012 at the MDE Office in Baltimore, Mary land. No one attended the hearing and no comments were received during the 30

- day comment period. The SI P submittal contains e vidence of this hearing through the Hearing Statement

.

Notice s of th e proposed public hearing appeared in the: Maryland Register on June 15, 2012; MDE's website from 5/11/12 through 7/18/ 12; Baltimore Sun on June 15, 2012; Washington Post on June 1 4, 2012; Frederick News

- Post on June 15, 2012; Cumberland Times

- News on June 15, 2012; X**EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMI**  **TTAL (X)**  Saint Mary 's Enterprise on June 15, 2012; Salisbury Dail y Times on June 15, 2012; and the Cecil Whig on June 15, 2012. 8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto. 8. Maryland reported that it received no testimony on this revision during the original public comment period

, nor during the public hearing held in Baltimore, Maryland on 7/18/12

. X

**Technical Materials** 1. I dentification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan. 1. Not Applicable

2. I dentification of 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. Not Applicable

3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; estim ates 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 baseline levels and allowable emissions ant icipated as a result of the revision. 3. Not Applicable

4. The State's demonstration that the national 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 implemente d. 4. Not Applicable

5. Modeling information 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 information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analy sis. 5. Not Applicable

6. Evidence, where necessary , that emission limitations are 6. Not Applicable**EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMI**  **TTAL (X)** 

based on continuous emission reduction technology

. 7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary , to ensure emission levels. 7. Not Applicable

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including h ow compliance will be determined in practice. 8. Not Applicable

9. Special economic and technological justifications required by an y applicable EPA policies. (If a policy is not appropriate, explain why .) 9. Not Applicable

10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. 10. Not Applicable