SIP COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION

Overview: The criteria for completeness determination is Appendix V to Part 51 - Criteria for determining th e com pleteness of plan submissions and is outlined below:
1.0 Purpose: Thi s appendix V sets forth the minimum criteria for determining whether a State implement ati on pl an 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 fail s to meet the criteria set forth in this appendix V, and request corrective action, identifying the com ponent(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 sub missio n meets the requirements of this appendix V within 60 days of EPA's receipt of the submittal, but no lat er 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 mon th s from receipt of a submit tal , the submittal shall be deemed complete by operation of law on the date 6 mo nt hs from receipt. A determination of completeness under this paragraph means that th e 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 submitt ed to EPA i s com plete. 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 app roval 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 d ocum ent) i

n final form. This evidence would include: Yes __x__ No _____

State Date of

adopti on or f

inal issuance: December 20, 2005. (See December 30, 2005 issue of th e Texas Register

(30 TexReg 8884) for the adopti on of the final rule, Final Rule effective date at the State Level : January 5, 2006) Ef fective date of revision, if different from adoption/issuance date.

Yes __x___ No ____ 

### COMMENTS: Final Rule revision effective date: January 5, 2006. Also, see “ Correcti on of Errors ” to the above December 30, 2005 publication, at 31 TexReg 422 dated January 20, 2006. (c). Evi dence 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 authori ty

. Yes __x___ No _____ 

### COMMENTS: See the Order of Adopti ng 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

i s included of the actual regulation or document submitted for approval and inco rporati on 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 doc ument 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.

2Yes __x__ No _____



### COMMENTS: Ef

fective date of the rule is Final Rule effective date at the State Level: January 5, 2006. (e). Evi dence is included that the State followed all the procedural requirements of its laws and/or its constitution in the conducting and completin g the adopti on/issuance of the plan. This evidence may be: A checklist of required steps; A copy of the requi rements with each step clearly identified; or Other appropri ate docum entati on.

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, i ncluding the date of publication of such notice, (e.g., notarized or certi fied copies of any public notices published in newsp apers). (The noti ce should be at least 30 days prior to the public hearing(s). 

### COMMENTS: Noti ce of public hearing publication in the Austin American Statesman July 1, 2005. Fort Worth Star-Tel egram July 2, 2005. Houston Chronicle July 2, 2005. Corpu s 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 th e proposed rul e i

n the July 15, 2005, issue of the T exas 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 certi ficat io n is included indicating that public hearing(s) was/were held in accordance with th e i nfo rm ati on provi ded in the public notice(s) and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

Yes __x___ No _____ 

### COMMENTS: See the secti on l abeled as Notice and Proposal in the 2006 SIP submittal (the

“ 2006" here refers t o 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 com

pilat io n of public comments and the State's response is included.

Yes __x___ No _____

3

### COMMENTS : See the secti on l abeled 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 shoul d i

nclude the following technical informati on i n its SIP revision request package. (a). Identi ficat io n of all regulated pollutants affected by the revision is included.

Yes __x___ No _____ Not appl icable _____ (b). Identi ficat io n of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attai nment /nonattai

nment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s) is included.

Yes __x___ No ______ Not appl icable _____ The submittal concerns General Air Quality Rule 101, and affects al l sources of emissions regardless of location and designation. (c). Quanti ficat io n 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 emissio ns anticipated if the revisions were approved.)

Yes _____ No _____ Not appl icable __x___ The submittal concerns General Air Quality Rule 101, and quantification of allowable emissions does not appl

y here. (d). Demonstrati on i s included that the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibilit y as applicable, would be protected if the revision were approved and implemented.

Yes _____ No _____ Not appl icable __x___ Is there a fully approved maintenance plan for the primary ambient air qualit y standards for at least 10 years as required by § 175A of the Clean Air Act?

Yes _____ No _____ Not appl icable __x___ The submittal concerns General Air Quality Rule 101, and maintenance plan per §175A of the Clean AirAct does not appl y here. Are contingency measures included?

Yes _____ No _____ Not appl icable __x___

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

data, model s used, justification of model(s) selected, ambient monitoring data used, met eorol ogi cal 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 mo deling analysis as needed. Yes ____ No _____ Not appl icable __x___ The submittal concerns General Air Quality Rule 101, and modeling input, output, models used, data, am bient monitoring, justifications, and such information do not apply here. (f). Evidence, is includ ed where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emissio n reduction technology (e.g., add-on controls, industrial/process equipment designs, reformulated materials, etc.).

Yes _____ No _____ Not appl icable __x___
T he 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 appl

y here. (g). Evi dence is included indicating that a S IP revision contains the following to ensure stated emissio n levels:

em issio n limit ati ons Yes _____ No _____ Not appl icable __x___ work practi ce standards Yes ____ No _____ Not appl icable __ x___ recordk eeping/reporting requirements Yes _____ No _____ Not applicable __x___ (h). Com pliance/enforcement strategies including how compliance will be determined in practice (i ncluding at what frequency). Yes __x___ No _____ No t appl icable _____
Com pliance 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 m et al l of the l ist ed criteria. Affirmat ive defense as opposed to enforcement discretion is the adopted method of demonstrating compliance. (i ). As appropri ate, special economic and technological justifications are included per applicable EPA pol icies or an explanation why such justification are not necessary should be included. For example, the following types of request may require such justification: Al ternati ve RACT yes _____ no _____ n/a __x___

5Long-term averaging VOC emission limits yes _____ no _____ n/a __x___ Pl ant wide Averaging y es _____ no _____ n/a __x___ Other speci al economic or technological justification as requested
y es _____ no _____ Not appl icable __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 acti on m eets com pleteness criteria.

______ The proposed SIP acti on does not m eet com pleteness criteria.

6