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

- App. V) SI P Submitted by : Mary land Department of the Environment Date Submitted: December 15, 2011 Subject: Revision #11

- 09 for the incorporation of Control Technique Guidelines for lithographic and letterpress printing by U.S. EPA into Mary land’s Regulation (COMAR 26.11.19) Completeness Review Completed by : Asrah Khadr Date Completed: January 5, 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. Letter dated December 15, 2011 from Robert M. Summers Ph.D., Secretary , Mary land Department of the Environment to Shawn M. 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 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. Final Action on Regulations was published in the Mary land Register on October 21, 2011. The revision to Regul ation .11 under COMAR 26.11.19

- Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes was a dopted by the Secretary of the Environment on October 4, 2011 and became effective on October 21, 2011. X

3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority

under State law to adopt and implement the plan. 3. Mary land has the legal authority to adopt and implement the plan under Environment Article, §§1

- 101, 1

- 404, 2

- 101

- 2

- 103, 2

- 301

- 2

- 303, 10

- 102, and 10

- 103, Annotated Code of Mary land. 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 S tate regulation/document signed, stamped, dated b y the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable b y the State. The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. 4

. A c opy of Volume 38, I ssue 12 of the Mary land Register (April 22, 2011), shows Regulation 0.11 of COMAR 26 .11.19 with proposed revisions. Copy of Volume 38, Is sue 12 of the Mary land Register (October 21, 2011) finalizes the previousl y proposed regulation and shows minor revisions ma de to the proposed Regulation. The revision was a dopted by the Secretary of the Environment on October 4, 2011 and became effective on October 21, 2011. 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

. A l etter from Linda C. Janey , J.D., Assistant Secretary for Clearinghouse and Communications affirming that amendments to Regulation 0.11 under COMAR 26.11.19 met all requirem ents in accordance with COMAR 34.02 .01.04

- .06. 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. Certificate of publication certify ing that a notice of public hear ing appeared on the MDE website. Notice of public hearing also appeared in emails to interested parties, and in the correction of hearing date published in Volume 38, I ssue 12 of the Mary land Register (June 3, 2011). 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. Hearing statement by the Air and Radiation Managem ent Administration of the MDE affirming that state and federal laws were met at the pu

blic hearing

. X

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto. 8. Hearing Transcript provided as well as a cop y of the public comments received and the responses thereto. X**Technical Materials EPA REQUIREMENT**  **STATE SUBMITTAL (X)** 

1. I dentification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan. 1. The submittal identifies VOCs which are a precursor to

ozone

. X
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. This regulation regulates VOCs, hence there are no attainment/nonattainment designation s of loc a tions and no attainment plan. The affected area is 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, qua ntification 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. Not applicable, implementation of EPA’s Control Te chnique Guidelines for lithographic and letterpress printing into Mary land’s Regulations. X

4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progr ess demonstration, and visibility , as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented. 4. The SI P revision consists o f amendments to Regulation 0.11 under COMAR 26.11.19 regarding addition of EPA’s Control Technique Guidelines for lithographic and letterpress printing which will assist with the attainment of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) and improve the ambient air quality

in Mary land. X

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 adequac y of the modeling analy sis. 5. Not applicable. No modeling demonstration was required to support the revision. X

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

. 6 . The plan includes air pollution control devices as part of VOC emission s control. X**EPA REQUIREMENT 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 amendments esta blish ed emissions limitations for VOCs as well as work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements. X
8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice. 8

. The amendment s discuss compliance strategies for the emissions limitations for VOCs

. 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 Sect ion 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