Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1068-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-02-26T05:00Z

SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST

	(in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51 - App. V)

SIP Submitted by:	Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality

Date Submitted: 	August 6, 2007

Subject:		110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the White Top Mountain, Smyth
County, VA 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area	

Completeness Review 

Completed by: 	Irene Shandruk

Date Completed: 	October 19, 2007

	

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 August 6, 2007 from David K. Paylor, Director of the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to Judith M. Katz, Air
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 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.  N/A – Submittal is a request for approval of a 110(a)(1) 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan.

	

  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 Virginia
Air Pollution Control Law.	

  X

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. N/A – see #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 approved by EPA, including the date of
publication of such notice.	

6.  Notice of public hearing and public comment period was published on
June 15, 2007 in the Bristol Herald Courier.	

  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. Submittal indicates that a public hearing was held  in the DEQ
Southwest Regional Office on July 16, 2007	

  X

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto.	

N/A – No public comments were received.	

  X

Technical Materials													   Acceptable

	EPA REQUIREMENT	

	STATE SUBMITTAL 	

(X)

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan.	1. 
The submittal identifies 1-hour and 8-hour ozone.	

  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 submittal applies
to the White Top Mountain, Smyth County, Virginia 1-hour nonattainment
area and current 8-hour attainment 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
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.  N/A – There are
essentially no anthropogenic emissions in this area, so an emissions
inventory is not needed.

	

  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 implemented. 	4. 
N/A – A maintenance demonstration is not needed since essentially no
anthropogenic emissions exist.

        	

  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 analysis.	5. 
All modeling data is present.	

  X

 

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

  X

7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice
standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to
ensure emission levels.	7.  N/A – Periodic emission inventory updates
are not necessary since essentially no anthropogenic emissions exist.

	

  X

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be
determined in practice.	8   N/A – Contingency measures are not
necessary since essentially no anthropogenic emissions exist.

	

  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