SIP Submitted by: Date Submitted: SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST (in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51

- App. V) West Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Protection March 5, 2012 Subject:

. Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the WV Portion ofthe Parkersburg-Marietta WV-OH PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Completeness Review Completed by: Marilyn Powers Date Completed: August 16,2012 Administrative Materials ACCEPTABLE 

# I EPAREQUIREMENT 

# I STATE SUBMITTAL

# I~ 

# I

1. A formal letter ofsubmittal from the Governor or his 1. Submittal letter dated March 5, 2011 from West Virginia 

### X designee, requesting EPA approval ofthe plan or revision Department ofEnvironmental Protection Secretary Randy C. thereof. Huffman, to Shawn M Garvin, Regional Administrator EPA Region 3

. 

## 12. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code 2. N/A (Not a regulatory change- the submittal is a request for orbody ofregulations; or issued the permit, order, consent redesignation, a maintenance plan, and 2008 base-year !agreement in final form. That evidence shall include the date inventory approval). ofadoption or final issuance as well as the effective date ofthe [plan, ifdifferent from the adoption/issuance date. 3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority 3. The plan states that it has the necessary legal authority and 

### X under State law to adopt and implement the plan. necessary resources to enforce its rules or permit provisions on which the plan is based.I 

## 14

.A copy ofactual regulation, or document submitted for 4

. N/A, see 2 above. approval and**incorpor~tion** by reference into the plan, including indication ofthe changes made to the existing approved plan, !where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy ofthe official State regulation/document signed, stamped, dated bythe appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable 

## py the State. The effective date ofthe regulation/document shall, wheneverpossible, be indicated in the document itself. 5. Evidence that the State followed all ofthe procedural 5

. The submittal included documentation showing that the !requirements ofthe State's laws and constitution in conducting State followed State procedural and administrative and completing the adoption/issuance ofthe plan. requirements in issuing the plan. 6. Evidence that public notice was given ofthe proposed 6. The submittal included a copy ofthe notice ofpublic X change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including hearing and public comment period that was published in the the date ofpublication ofsuch notice. Parkersburg & Sentinel onJanuary 23, 2012 and the West Virginia Register on January 20, 2012. 7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance 7. A transcript ofthe public hearing showed the public hearing X with the information provided in the public notice and the was held in accordance with the public notice. The March 5, State's laws and constitution, ifapplicable. 2012 submittal letter certifies that the public hearing required by 40 CFR 51.102 was held in accordance with state laws and the requirements of40 CFR 51.102(d). 8. Compilation ofpublic comments and the State's response 8. The submittal included a compilation ofcomments received X**~hereto.** and the responses to the comments.

# I EPA REQIDREMENT 

# I STATE SUBMITTAL 

# I 

# I
1. Identification ofall regulated pollutants affected by the plan. 1. Chapter 1 ofthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance X Plan showthat NOx, S02and PM2
.5 are the pollutants affected by the plan. 2. Identification ofthe locations ofaffected sources including 2. Wood County and the Grant tax district in Pleasants County X**~he** EPA attainment/nonattainment designation ofthe locations in WV (the WV Portion ofthe Parkersburg-Marietta1997 and the status ofthe attainment plan for the affected area(s). PM2.s Nonattainment Area) 3. Quantification ofthe changes in plan allowable emissions 3. Information on the point, area and mobile source emissions X from the affected sources; estimates ofchanges in current estimates used in the request for redesignation, the PM2

_ 5 actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, maintenance plan, and the 2008 attainment base year inventory quantification ofchanges in actual emissions from affected for the WV portion ofthe Parkersburg-Marietta Area are sources through calculations ofthe differences between certain provided in the submittal. The 2008 emissions level may not baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result be exceeded during the period ofthe maintenance plan. ofthe revision. 4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air 4. The state projected emissions inventories for interim year X jquality standards, prevention ofsignificant deterioration 2015 and end year 2022 that do not exceed the 2008 base year, increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and showing continued attainment ofthe PM2 . 5 national ambient air visibility, as applicable, are protected iftheplan is approved quality standard (NAAQS) during the maintenance plan period. and implemented. 5. Modeling information required to support the proposed 5. Not applicable. revision, including input data, output data, models used, ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used,**~ustification** for use ofoffsite data (where used), modes of !models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to lfue determination ofadequacy ofthe modeling analysis. 6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are 6. Not applicable. based on continuous emission reduction technology. 7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work 7. Based on permanent and enforceable measures, West X !Practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, Virginia has projected emissions inventories for interim year!Where necessary, to ensure emission levels. 2015 and out year 2022 that demonstrate attainment throughout the entire maintenance period.
' 8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how 8. Identified contingency·measures will be implemented ifthe X compliance will be determined inpractice. Area violates or exceeds the PM2.s standard. These measures are intended to bring the area back to attainment ofthe standard. 9. Special economic and technologicaljustifications required 9. NIA by any applicable EPA policies. (Ifa policy is not appropriate, explain why.) 10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a 10. A Maintenance Plan was submitted to EPA Region ill on X maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant Mrach 5, 2012, along the the redesignation request. This plan NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. demonstrates maintenance through 2022.