SIP COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION

Overview:

The criteria for completeness determination is Appendix V to Part 51 - Criteria for determining 

the completeness of plan submissions and is outlined below: 

1.0 Purpose: This appendix V sets forth the minimum criteria for determining whether a State 

implementation plan submitted for consideration by EPA is an official submission for 

purposes of review under § 51.103. 

1.1 The EPA shall return to the submitting official any plan or revision thereof which fails to 

meet the criteria set forth in this appendix V, and request corrective action, identifying the 

component(s) absent or insufficient to perform a review of the submitted plan.

1.2 The EPA shall inform the submitting official whether or not a plan submission meets the 

requirements of this appendix V within 60 days of EPA's receipt of the submittal, but no 

later than 6 months after the date which the State was required to submit the plan or 

revision. If a completeness determination is not made by 6 months from receipt of a 

submittal, the submittal shall be deemed complete by operation of law on the date 6 

months from receipt. A determination of completeness under this paragraph means that 

the submission is an official submission for purposes of §51.103.

The attached checklist outlines the basic criteria included under 2.1 and 2.2 of Appendix V.
SIP Completeness Checklist (2.0)

When preparing a SIP revision request, the SIP reviewer should go through this list to help 

identify that the package submitted to EPA is complete. States can use the check list to assure 

SIP submittals meet Appendix V criteria.

Administrative Materials (2.1)

(a). The package is sent with a formal submittal letter from the Governor or his or her designee 

requesting EPA's approval of the revision.

 Yes __x__ No _____

(b). 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 evidence would include:

Yes __x__ No _____ 

State Date of adoption or final issuance: December 20, 2005. (See December 30, 2005 issue of 

the Texas Register (30 TexReg 8884) for the adoption of the final rule, Final Rule effective date 

at the State Level: January 5, 2006)

Effective date of revision, if different from adoption/issuance date.

Yes __x___ No ____ 

COMMENTS: Final Rule revision effective date: January 5, 2006. Also, see “Correction of

Errors” to the above December 30, 2005 publication, at 31 TexReg 422 dated January 20, 2006.

(c). 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.

Yes __x___ No _____

COMMENTS: See the Order of Adopting Amended Rules and Revisions to the SIP by 

TCEQ Chairman Kathleen Harnett White for the State Docket # 2005-0792-RUL stamp-dated 

DEC 20, 2005.

(d). A copy is included of the actual regulation or document submitted for approval 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 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.

2
Yes __x__ No _____

COMMENTS: Effective date of the rule is Final Rule effective date at the State Level: 

January 5, 2006.

(e). 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 requirements with each step clearly identified; or

 Other appropriate documentation.

Yes __x___ No _____

COMMENTS: Copy of the public notice, proof of publications, proof of public hearing, 

Agenda for the public hearing , and the Kathleen Hartnett White’s letter, TCEQ Chairman, dated 

January 23, 2006, (Cover letter) were included as components of the SIP submittal.

(f). 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 or 

certified copies of any public notices published in newspapers). (The notice should be at least 30 

days prior to the public hearing(s).

COMMENTS: Notice of public hearing publication in the Austin American Statesman July 1, 

2005. Fort Worth Star-Telegram July 2, 2005. Houston Chronicle July 2, 2005. Corpus Christi 

Caller-Times July 2, 2005. Midland reporter-Telegram July 1, 2005. Public Hearing notice was 

published in the July 15, 2005, issue of the Texas Register (30 TexReg 4150), and publication of 

the proposed rule in the July 15, 2005, issue of the Texas Register (30 TexReg 4090). Example 

of the Newspaper Classified advertisement for the Houston Chronicle of July 2, 2005 was 

included as a part of the SIP submittal. 

(g). 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 applicable.

Yes __x___ No _____ 

COMMENTS: See the section labeled as Notice and Proposal in the 2006 SIP submittal (the 

“2006" here refers to the year that SIP submittal was received in the EPA R6 office, the submittal 

was received in EPA R6 and is stamp-dated by the R6's External Affairs Division: January 26, 

2006).

(h). A compilation of public comments and the State's response is included.

Yes __x___ No _____

3
COMMENTS: See the section labeled as Testimony in the 2006 SIP submittal. 

Please comment on any "no" responses given to any of the above questions.

Technical Support (2.2)

The State should include the following technical information in its SIP revision request package.

(a). Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the revision is included.

Yes __x___ No _____ Not applicable _____

(b). 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.

Yes __x___ No ______ Not applicable _____

The submittal concerns General Air Quality Rule 101, and affects all sources of emissions 

regardless of location and designation.

(c). Quantification of the changes in SIP allowable emissions from the affected sources is 

included. (Examples include estimates of changes in current 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.)

 Yes _____ No _____ Not applicable __x___

The submittal concerns General Air Quality Rule 101, and quantification of allowable emissions 

does not apply here.

(d). Demonstration is included that the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and 

visibility as applicable, would be protected if the revision were approved and implemented.

 Yes _____ No _____ Not applicable __x___

Is there a fully approved maintenance plan for the primary ambient air quality standards for at 

least 10 years as required by § 175A of the Clean Air Act?

 Yes _____ No _____ Not applicable __x___

The submittal concerns General Air Quality Rule 101, and maintenance plan per §175A of the 

Clean Air Act does not apply here.

Are contingency measures included?

 Yes _____ No _____ Not applicable __x___

4
(e). Modeling information required to support the propose revision, including input data, output 

data, models used, justification 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 

analysis as needed.

Yes ____ No _____ Not applicable __x___ 

The submittal concerns General Air Quality Rule 101, and modeling input, output, models used, 

data, ambient monitoring, justifications, and such information do not apply here.

(f). Evidence, is included where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous 

emission reduction technology (e.g., add-on controls, industrial/process equipment designs, 

reformulated materials, etc.).

 Yes _____ No _____ Not applicable __x___

The submittal concerns General Air Quality Rule 101, and continuous emission reduction 

technology (e.g., add-on controls, industrial/process equipment designs, reformulated materials, 

etc.) do not apply here. 

(g). Evidence is included indicating that a SIP revision contains the following to ensure stated 

emission levels:

 emission limitations Yes _____ No _____ Not applicable __x___

 work practice standards Yes ____ No _____ Not applicable __ x___

 recordkeeping/reporting requirements Yes _____ No _____ Not applicable __x___

(h). Compliance/enforcement strategies including how compliance will be determined in practice 

(including at what frequency).

 Yes __x___ No _____ Not applicable _____

Compliance is determined on a case by case basis, and after evaluating the criteria listed in 

101.222 (Demonstrations). The source or operator has the burden of proof that it has 

demonstrated or met all of the listed criteria. Affirmative defense as opposed to enforcement 

discretion is the adopted method of demonstrating compliance.

(i). As appropriate, special economic and technological justifications are included per applicable 

EPA policies or an explanation why such justification are not necessary should be included. For 

example, the following types of request may require such justification:

 Alternative RACT yes _____ no _____ n/a __x___

5
 Long-term averaging VOC emission limits yes _____ no _____ n/a __x___

 Plant wide Averaging yes _____ no _____ n/a __x___

 Other special economic or technological justification as requested 

 

 yes _____ no _____ Not applicable __x___

In this SIP revision, State has removed the rule’s previous sunset provision.

Date: February 22, 2006 Reviewed By: Alan Shar

 

Conclusion: __x___ The proposed SIP action meets completeness criteria.

 ______ The proposed SIP action does not meet completeness criteria.

6