Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2005-MD-0014-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-02-06T05:00Z

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
31,
2005
Subject:
Revision
#
05­
09
­
Amendments
to
COMAR
26.11.19.17
­
Control
of
VOC
Emissions
from
Yeast
Manufacturing
Completeness
Review
Completed
by:
Rose
Quinto
Date
Completed:
November
15,
2005
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
October
31,
2005,
from
Kendl
P.
Philbrick,

Secretary,
Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment,
to
Donald
S.
Welsh,
Regional
Administrator,
EPA
Region
III.
Yes
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.
A
copy
of
the
regulation
as
contained
in
the
Maryland
Register
on
June
10,
2005,
Volume
32,
Issue
12
(
proposed
action)
and
on
September
2,
2005,
Volume
32,
Issue
18
(
final
action).
Both
the
adoption
(
August
23,
2005)
and
effective
(
September
12,
2005)
dates
are
included
in
the
Maryland
Register
Notice
of
Final
Action.
Yes
3.
Evidence
that
the
State
has
the
necessary
legal
authority
under
State
law
to
adopt
and
implement
the
plan.
3.
Environmental
Article,
Title
2,
Annotated
Code
of
Maryland.
Yes
Administrative
Materials
EPA
REQUIREMENT
STATE
SUBMITTAL
(
X)

2
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
rule
as
published
in
the
Maryland
Register.

Effective
date
of
September
12,
2005,
is
part
of
the
Maryland
Register
Notice.
Yes
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.
Letter
dated
October
31,
2005
from
Kendl
P.
Philbrick,

Secretary,
Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment.
Yes
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.
Copy
of
hearing
notices
in
The
Baltimore
Sun,
Saint
Mary's
Enterprise,
Cumberland
Times­
News,
Frederick
News­
Post,

Salisbury
Daily
Times
and
Washington
Post.
Yes
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.
Letter
dated
October
31,
2005,
from
Kendl
P.
Philbrick,

Secretary,
Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment.
Copy
of
hearing
transcripts
and
hearing
statement.
Yes
8.
Compilation
of
public
comments
and
the
State's
response
thereto.
8.
No
comments
were
received
during
the
30­
day
comment
period..
Yes
Technical
Materials
EPA
REQUIREMENT
STATE
SUBMITTAL
(
X)

3
1.
Identification
of
all
regulated
pollutants
affected
by
the
plan.
1.
The
plan
establishes
requirements
to
control
VOC
emissions
from
yeast
manufacturing
facilities.
Yes
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.
The
two
yeast
manufacturers
in
Maryland
are
located
in
Baltimore
City
and
Baltimore
County.
Yes
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
control
VOC
emissions
from
yeast
manufacturing
facilities
.
Yes
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
plan
addresses
only
nonattainment
area
pollutants
for
ozone.
Therefore,
PSD
increments
and
protection
(
maintenance)
of
NAAQS
are
not
applicable.
The
plan
does
not
concern
reasonable
further
progress.
Yes
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.
Yes
6.
Evidence,
where
necessary,
that
emission
limitations
are
based
on
continuous
emission
reduction
technology.
6.
Not
applicable.
The
plan
established
requirements
to
control
VOC
emissions
from
yeast
manufacturing
facilities.
Yes
Technical
Materials
EPA
REQUIREMENT
STATE
SUBMITTAL
(
X)

4
7.
Evidence
that
the
plan
contains
emission
limitations,
work
practice
standards
and
recordkeeping/
reporting
requirements,

where
necessary,
to
ensure
emission
levels.
7.
Section
(
F)
of
COMAR
26.11.19.17.
Yes
8.
Compliance/
enforcement
strategies,
including
how
compliance
will
be
determined
in
practice.
8.
Section
(
D)
of
COMAR
26.11.19.17.
Yes
9.
Special
economic
and
technological
justifications
required
by
any
applicable
EPA
policies.
(
If
a
policy
is
not
appropriate,

explain
why.)
9.
No
special
justification
are
required.
Yes
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;
this
is
not
a
section
107
request.
Yes