SIP Completeness Checklist

State: New Jersey

Date of Letter: July 8, 2010

Date Received: July 19, 2010

Title: Proposed Revision to the Enhanced Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) Program for the State of New Jersey: 

Extension of the New Vehicle Inspection Exemption from 4 

Years to 5 Years

Reviewer's Name: Jenna Salomone

Review Date: July 29, 2010

Result of Review:

Submission ID Number: __________________

OAQPS Number: __________________________

Determination of Completeness Checklist

The following checklist is to be used to determine if a 

formal SIP revision submittal is complete, or if a State's 

request for parallel processing is adequate to initiate the 

federal rulemaking process. The entire checklist should be 

used to determine whether a formal SIP revision submittal 

is complete, including a formal submittal of a revision for 

which a notice of proposed rulemaking was published via 

parallel processing on a proposed/draft version of the 

revision. An asterisk * indicates the portions of the 

checklist that are to be used to determine if a State's 

request for parallel processing is adequate to initiate 

federal rulemaking.

The checklist serves as a guide to State/local agencies in 

preparing reviewable SIP packages, and for the EPA 

reviewers in determining whether to initiate the federal 

rulemaking process or return the submittal to the 
State/local agency. Common sense judgment must be used in 

assessing the completeness of a package. In doing so the 

reviewer must keep in mind the objectives of the 

completeness policy: (1) prompt return of SIP submittals 

that are inherently inadequate for review; (2) objective 

and consistent application of objective, understandable 

screening criteria; (3) reduction of the overall time and 

resources expended by both State/local agencies and EPA in 

the preparation and review of SIP submittals.

Administrative Materials

1) A formal letter of submittal from the Governor 

or designee requesting EPA approval of the 

revision.

Yes Formal Letter 

from 

Commissioner 

Bob Martin 

* A formal letter from the Governor or 

designee requesting that EPA propose approval of 

a proposed revision by parallel processing.

Yes Included in the 

Formal Letter 

from 

Commissioner 

Bob Martin

2) Evidence that the State has adopted the 

revision in the State code or body of 

regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent 

agreement (hereafter document) in final form. 

That evidence should include the date of adoption 

or final issuance as well as the effective date 

of the revision if different from the 

adoption/issuance date.

* Schedule for final adoption or issuance 

should be included in a State's request for 

parallel processing.

3) Evidence that the State has the necessary 

legal authority under State law to adopt and 

implement the revision.

* Same evidence should accompany a request 

for parallel processing of a Proposed State 

revision.
3

4) A copy of the actual regulation, or document 

submitted for approval and incorporation by 

reference into the SIP, including indication of 

the changes made to the existing approved SIP, 

where applicable. The submittal should 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 should, whenever possible, be 

indicated in the document itself.

* A copy of the proposed/draft regulation or 

document must be included in a State's request 

for parallel processing.

5) Evidence that the State followed all of the 

requirements of its Administrative Procedures Act 

(or equivalent) in conducting and completing the 

adoption/issuance of the revision.

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.

7) Certification that public hearing(s) were held 

in accordance with the information provided in 

the public notice and the State's Administrative 

Procedures Act (or equivalent). if applicable.

8) Compilation of public comments and the State's 

response thereto.

NOTE: Items 5 - 8 are not required for a request to parallel 

process a proposed/draft revision.

Technical Support

* Requests for parallel processing should include all of the 

Technical Support required for formal submittals as follows:
4

1) Identification of all regulated pollutants 

affected by the revision.

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).

3) Quantification of the changes in SIP 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 post revision.

4) Demonstration that the NAAQS/PSD

increments/RFP demonstration/visibility are 

protected if revision is approved and 

implemented.

5) Modeling information required to support the 

proposed revision, including input data, output 

data, models used, justification of model 

selections, ambient monitoring data used, 

meteorological data used, justification for use 

of offsite data (where used), modes of models 

used, assumptions, etc.

6) Evidence, where necessary, that emission 

limitations are based on continuous emission 

reduction technology, e.g., add-on controls, 

industrial/process equipment designs, 

reformulated materials, etc.

7) Evidence that a revision contains emission 

limitations, work practice standards and 

recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where 

necessary, to ensure emission levels.
5

8) Compliance/enforcement strategies including 

how compliance will be determined in practice, 

and at what frequency.

9) As appropriate, special economic and 

technological justifications per applicable EPA 

policies. For example, economic and 

technological justification for alternative RACT, 

for long-term averaging of VOC emission limits, 

or to support bubble proposals.