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

- App. V)

SIP Submitted by: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Date Submitted: September 29, 2011 Subject: Maintenance Plan Update, Freder icksburg 8

- Hour Ozone Maintenance Area

Completeness Review Completed by: Gregory Becoat /s/ Date Completed: November 29 , 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 September 29 , 2011 from David Paylor, Vir ginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) to Diana Esher,

Director

. 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 inc lude the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/issuance date. 2. N/A (Not a regulatory change. The submittal upgrades the 2009 and 2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets for nitrogen

ox ides). 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 § 10.1

- 1185 of the Code of Virginia XEPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submit ted 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. N/A See number 2 above.

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. N/A X

6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approve d by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice. 6. Notice of public hearing and public comment period was published in the Virginia Register of Regulations on August 15

, 2011

. 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. A public hearing was held on September 16 , 2011 in accordance with State laws as evidenced by hearing transcript

and letter dated September 29 , 20 11 from David Paylor, Director, Virginia Department of the Environmental Quality to Diana Esher, EPA Region 3 Air Protection Director

. X

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto. 8. One public comment was received and addressed

. XTechnical Materials

EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan. 1. The submittal identifies nitrogen oxides as the reg ulated pollutant affected by the plan. 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. The SIP affects t he Fredericksburg Maintenance Area.

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 a ctual emissions from affected sources through

calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision. 3. The plan includes air quality monitoring data, nitrogen

oxides motor vehicle emissions budgets using MOVES2010a, Nitrogen oxides emissions from 2004

– 2015, and emission

inventories. X

4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments,

reasonable fu rther progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented. 4. The state updated 2004, 2009, and 2015 nitrogen oxides motor vehicle emissions budgets using the latest planning assumptions and MOVES2 010a. 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 use d, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis. 5. The appropriate EPA model MOVES2010a with appropriate inputs and data was utilized to model the mobile emissions X

6. Evidence, where necessary , that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology. 6. N/A 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 l evels. 7. Continued air quality monitoring in the region will ensure

that if that future violations of the attainment standard should occur, appropriate contingency measures would be implemented to reduce emissions. X

8. Compliance/enforcement strategie s, including how compliance will be determined in practice. 8. N/A 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