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 Appliance 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 revision thereof.

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

Acting Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment 

(MDE) 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 

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, 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; 

X
EPA 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 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 letter transmitting the SIP revision dated December 15, 

2010. Copies and certification of public hearing 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 on June 22, 2010, The Washington 

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

Enquirer-Gazette, 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 notice 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 American Coatings Association 

on August 3, 2010 and MDE provide proof of response in 

December 15, 2010 submittal. 

X
Technical Materials

EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

1. Identification 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 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 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 plan 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 progress demonstration, and visibility, as 

applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented. 

4. The SIP revision consists of 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.

 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 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