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

- App. V)

SI P Submitted by : Pennsy lvania Department of Environmental Protection Date Submitted: July 22, 2013 Subject: Update of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Reading Eight

- Hour Ozone Maintenance Area

Maintenance Plan

Completeness Review Completed by : Asrah Khadr Date Completed: 8/ 6/13

**Administrative Materials ACCEPTABLE** 

**EPA REQUIREM ENT**  **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 July 22, 2013 from E. Christopher Abruzzo, Acting Secretary , Penns ylvania Department of Environmental Protection to Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator. 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 effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/issuance date. 2. Letter dated July 22, 201 3 from E. Christopher Abruzzo, Acting Secret ary , Penns ylvania De p artment of Environmental Protection to Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator stating that the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SI P) was revised. X

3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State l aw to adopt and implement the plan. 3. E. Christopher Abruzzo, Acting Secretary , Pennsy lvania Department of Environmental Protection has delegated authority to adopt and implement the Pennsy lvania SI P revision. X**EPA REQUIREM ENT**  **STATE SUBMITTAL (X)** 

4. A cop y 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

. Documents entitled, “State Implementation Plan Revision: NO x Motor Vehicle Budget Revisions Based on the MOVES2010a Model ,” as well as a letter dated July 22, 2013 from E. Christopher Abruzzo
, Acting Secretary , Pennsy lvania Department of Environmental Protection to Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator indicating revision to Pennsy lvania S IP

. 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. The submittal was developed in accordance with Section 175A(b) of the Clean Air Act. X

6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved b y EPA, including the date of publication of such notice. 6. Publication invoice for publication of public notice in the Reading Eagle on March 30, 2013

. A cop y of the public notice as it ap peared in the Reading Eagle. 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. No public hearing was requested. X

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto. 8. N/A N/A**Technical Materials**

**EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL**  **(X)**

1. I dentification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan. 1. Ozone. X

2. I dentification 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 Reading Eight

- Hour Ozone Maintenance Area. The area currently

has a maintenance plan. X

3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; e stimates 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. The SI P revision provides motor vehicle emissions budgets developed b y MOVES2010a. The results provided are different than the MVEBs developed without the use of MOVES2010a. The MVEBs are clearl y quantified. X

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 imp lemented. 4. The SI P revision provides motor vehicle emissions budgets developed b y MOVES2010a. The results provided are different than the MVEBs developed without the use of MOVES2010a, but the difference is not due to an y changes in control strategies or other applicable requirements. It is due to the more advanced calculation mechanisms of the MOVES2010a model. 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 used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analy sis. 5 . MOVES2010a input and output files hav e been provided as well as the run specifications and the methodology and sources of data utilized to conduct the modeling. X

6. Evidence, where necessary , that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology

. 6. Not applica ble. N/A
7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary , to ensure emission levels. 7. Not applicable. N/A**EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL**  **(X)**

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice. 8. Not applicable. N/A

9. Special economic and technological justifications required by an y applicable EPA policies. (If a policy is not appropriate, explain why .) 9. Not applicable. N/A

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. N/A