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

- App. V)

SIP Submitted by: Maryland Department of the Environment

Date Submitted: December 15, 2010 Subject: Adoption of EPA CTG for Large Applianc e Coatings amendments to Regulation . 06 under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile

Organic Compounds from specific Processes.

Completeness Review Completed by: Gregory Becoat /s/ Date Completed: February 3, 2011

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 rev ision thereof. 1. Letter dated December 15, 2010 from Robert M. Summers

, Acting Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to Shawn Garvin, Regional Ad ministrator

. 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 sub mitted evidence that the regulations were adopted and approved in final form on October 22, 2010 , with an

effective date of November 1, 2010

. 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, 10

- 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 b y 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 indicatin g 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 July 2, 2010 , and the final rule was published in the Maryland Register on October 22, 2010 with an effective date of

November 1 , 2010

. 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 lette r transmitting the SIP revision dated December 15,

2010 . Cop ies and certification of public hearing notices. X

6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedure s 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 on June 22, 2010, The Washington

Post , on July 1, 2010 , as well as, The Baltimore Sun

, The

E nquirer

- Ga zette, The Daily and Sunday Times

, The

Cumberland Times

, and The Frederick News

- Post

, on July 2,

2010

. A hearing transcript is also provided. X

7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public not ice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable. 7. Original Transcript of Public Hearing was provided in the December 15, 2010 submittal. X

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto. 8. A comment was received by Ameri can Coatings Association on August 3, 2010 and MDE provide proof of response in December 15, 2010 submittal. XTechnical Materials

EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

1. Identificati on of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan. 1. The submittal identifies VOCs, which are precursors of 8

- hour ozone. X

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the location s 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 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. Not applicable. The pla n established requirements to limit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from large appliance coating

. X

4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further pr ogress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented. 4. The SIP revision consists o f an amendment to Regulation

.06 under COMAR 26.11.19 . This CTG will reduce emissions

of VOCs from large appliance coating

, which will aid in the (1)

attainment of the 8

- hour ozone standard, and (2) improvement of the ambient air quality in Maryland. 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 adequacy of the modeling analysis. 5. Not applicable. No modeling demonstration was required to support the required revision. No additional modeling beyond UAM attainment modeling is needed. X

6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology. 6. The plan established requirements to limit VOCs from large appliance coating operations

. XEPA 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 plan established requirements to limit VOCs from large appliance coating operations, and contains work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements. X

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance

will be determined in practice. 8. The plan established requirements to limit VOCs from large appliance coating operations. 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 relevant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. 10. Not applicable because this is not a section 107 request. X