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

- App. V) SI P Submitted by : Maryland Department of the Environment Date Received: April 6 , 201 2 Subject: Updated test methods, work practice and rec ordkeeping requirements for various CTG categories (SIP #1 2
- 0 3 ) Completeness Review: Completed by : Jacqueline Lewis Date Completed: July

2, 2012 **Administrative Materials ACCEPTABLE** 

**EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL**  **(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 April 4 , 20 12 from Dr. Robert M. Summers Secretary , Mary land Department of the Environment to Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator. 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 i n 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 i n final form on February 9, 2012 , with an effective date of March 5 , 20 1 2
. 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 Mary land Environment Art icle, §§1

- 101, 1
- 404, 2
- 101

– 2
- 103, 2
- 301

— 2
- 303, 10
- 102, and 10

- 103, Annotated Code of Mary land; Ch.23, Acts of 2006. X**EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL**  **(X)** 4. A cop y 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 b y the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable b y the State. T he effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. 4. A cop y of the proposed rule was published in the Maryland Register on December 2 , 20 11 , and the final rule was published in the Maryland Registe r on February 24 , 201 2 with an effective date of March 5 , 201 2
. 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. Cover letter transmitting the SIP revision dated April 4 , 20 12
. Cop ies and certification of public hearing notices. X 6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved b y EPA, including the date of publicat ion of such notice. 6. Notice of public hearing and public comment period was published on MDE’s web site on December 8 , 20 1 1 and remained until January

12, 2011
. A hearing transcript is provided. X

7. Certification that public hearings were held in ac cordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable. 7. A signed cop y of the t ranscript of the p ublic h earing which took place on January

11, 2012, was provided in the submittal. X 8. Compilat ion of public comments and the State's response thereto. 8. No public comment s w ere received during the comment period
. X**Technical Materials EPA REQUIREMENT**  **STATE SUBMITTAL (X)**  1. I dentification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan. 1. The submittal identifies VOCs
. X 2. I dentification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the att ainment plan for the affected area(s). 2. State of Mary land. X 3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions 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 baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision. 3. Minimal VOC emissions reductions, since this revisi on will only update test methods and work practice standards for various CTG categories. X

4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demo nstration, and visibility , as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented. 4. Not applicable. X

5. Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used, ambient monitorin g 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. No modeling demonstration was required to support the required revision. X

6. Evidence, where necessary , that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology
. 6. Not applicable. X 7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, wo rk practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary , to ensure emission levels. 7. The plan contains updated test methods and work practice standards for various CTG categories
. X**EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL**  **(X)** 8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, includi ng how compliance will be determined in practice. 8. The plan established requirements determine compliance with various CTG categories
. X 9. Special economic and technological justifications required b y an y 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 relevant NAAQS for at least 10 y ears after redesignation. 10. Not applicable because this is not a section 107 request. X