Page 1 

### SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST ( I n accordance with 40 CFR Part 51

- App. V)

SIP Submitted by: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)

Date Received: June 20

, 2013 Subject: Revision to Regional Haze Plan I ncorporating Settlement Agreement and BART Determination for AEP/PSO

Docket: EPA

- R06

- OAR

- 2013

- 0227

Completeness Review Completed by: Terry Johnson

Staff Review Date Completed: July 31

, 2013

.

Administrative Materials

Item EPA R equirement State Submittal Acceptable?

Y N



### 1 The package is sent with a formal submittal letter from the Governor or his or her designee requesting EPA's approval of the revision. The SIP package was submitted with a formal letter signed by Gary She rrer, Secretary of the Environment

. 

### X

2 Evidence is included that the State has adopted the revision in the State code or body of regulations, or that the State has issued the permit, order, consent agreement (hereafter document) in final form.

This ev idence would include effective date of revision, if different from adoption/issuance date. Date of adoption by the ODEQ : June 14, 2013 

### X

3 Evidence is included that the State has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the revision, e.g., a citation of the appropriate State authority. The SIP package resubmits a section entitled “Legal Authority” with the text of referenced rules and statutes. 

### XPage 2 Item EPA R equirement State Submittal Acceptable?

Y N



### 4 A copy is included of the actual regulation or document submitted for appro val and incorporation by reference into the SIP including an 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, and dated by the appropria te 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. The SIP package contains the full submittal and supporting appendices. 

### X

5 Evidence is included that the State followed all the procedural requirements of its laws and/or its constitution in the conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan. This evidence may be: a checklist of required steps; a copy of the requ irements with each step clearly identified; or other appropriate documentation. The SIP package outlines applicable public participation procedures in “Procedures for Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment Oklahoma SIP

Review /Revision Submitt als” with which all supporting

documentation is consistent. 

### X

6 Evidence is included that public notice was given of the proposed changes consistent with the procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice, (e.g., notarized o r certified copies of any public notices published in newspapers). (The notice should be at least 30 days prior to the public hearing(s). Cop ies of the public notice, proof of publications, proof of opportunity for public hearing, and transcript of public hearing were included as components of the SIP submittal. 

### X

7 A certification is included indicating that public hearing(s) was/were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice(s) and the State's laws and constitution, if appli cable. Appendix VI furnishes a public hearing certification and other documentation of a public hearing. 

### X

8 A compilation of public comments and the State's response is

included

. Appendi ces V and VI compile public comments received. Appendix VII provi des the state’s responses. 

### XPage 3 

### Technical Materials

Item EPA Requirement State Submittal Acceptable?

Y N



### 1 Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the revision is

included. The pollutant s of concern are NOx and SO 2

. 

### 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) is included. Technical support is based on visibility. Ho wever, the location of the affected source is currently attainment/unclassified for all criteria pollutants. 

### X

3 Quantification of the changes in SIP allowable emissions from the affected sources is included. (Examples include estimates of changes in c urrent actual emissions from affected sources and/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

if the revisions were approved.) SIP package contains appropriately quantified emission

limitations for NOx and SO 2

. 

### X

4 Demonstration is included that the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility

, as applicable, would be protected if the

revision were approved and implemented. The SIP package c ontains necessary demonstration that visibility will be protected. 

### X

5 Is there a fully approved maintenance plan for the primary ambient air quality standards for at least 10 years as required by § 175A o f

the Clean Air Act? The SIP revision is not a maintenance plan. 

### X

6 Are contingency measures included? Not for this SIP revision. 

### XPage 4 Item EPA Requirement State Submittal Acceptable?

Y N



### 7 Modeling information required to support the propose d revision, including input data, output data, models used, just ification of model(s) selected, 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 a nalysis as needed. Modeling information was provided to support EPA

review. 

### X

8 Evidence is included

, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology (e.g., add

- on controls, industrial/process equipment de signs, reformulated materials, etc.). Emission limitations are based on the CAA requirement for

BART. 

### X

9 Evidence is included indicating that a SIP revision contains the following to ensure stated emission levels: emission limitations, work practice sta ndards, and recordkeep ing/reporting requirements

. Emission limitations and applicable averaging methodology are provided with the SIP package. 

### X

10 Compliance/enforcement strategies including how compliance will be determined in practice (including at wha t frequency). The SIP revision builds on the state’s existing methods for determining compliance. 

### X

11 Evidence is included as appropriate, special economic and technological justifications are included per applicable EPA policies or an explanation why such justifications are not necessary should be included. For example, the following types of request may require such justification: Alternative RACT, Long

- term averaging VOC emission limits, Plant wide Averaging. Not applicable. 

### XPage 5 Conclusion: X T h e proposed SIP action meets the completeness criteria.

The proposed SIP action does NOT meet the completeness criteria.