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

- App. V)

SIP Submitted by: Maryland Department of the Environment

Date Submitted: October 8 , 2014 Subject: A

mendments to Regulation . 08 under COMAR 26.11.09 Control of Fuel

- Burning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel

- Burning Installations; and Regulations .06 and.07 under COMAR 26.11.14 Control of Emissions form Kraft Pulp Mills

.

Completeness Review Completed by: G

regory Becoat /s/ Date Completed: March 25, 2015

Administrative Materials

ACCEPTABLE

EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

1. A fo rmal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof. 1. Letter dated October 8, 2014 from Robert M. Summers

, 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 ef fective 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 Janurary 28, 2014 , with
an effective date of March 3, 2014

. X

3. Evidence that th

e 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 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 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 January 15, 2010, and November 14, 2013. T he final rule was published in the Maryland Register on July 16, 2010 (effective July 26, 2010) and February 21, 2014 (effective March 3, 2014), resp ectively. 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 October 8

, 2014 . Cop ies 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 an d public comment period was published on MDE website on January 26, 2010 and October 30,
2013

, The Washington Post , on January 28, 2010 and November 14, 2013 as well as, The Baltimore Sun

, The E nquirer

- Gazette, The Daily and Sunday Times

, The Cumberland Ti mes , and The
Frederick News

- Post

, on January 29 , 2010 and November 15,

2013

. 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

a nd constitution, if applicable. 7. Original Transcript of Public Hearing was provided in the October 8, 2014 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. XTechnical Materials

EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

1. Identification of all regulated pollutan ts 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 atta inment 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, quant ification 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 t o 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 vi sibility, 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 t he (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 u sed, 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 w as 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 req uirements 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 establi shed 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 justif ications 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