**SIP Completeness Checklist**

**State:** New Jersey
**Date of Letter:** July 8 , 20 10
**Date Received:** July 19, 2010
**Title:** Proposed Revision to the Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program for the State of New Jerse y: 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 Com pleteness 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 * in dicates 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, a nd for the EPA reviewers in determining whether to initiate the federal rulemaking process or return the submittal to theState/local agency. Common sense judgment must be used in

assessing the completeness of a package. In doing so the reviewer must kee p 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 Lette r 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 St ate 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, in cluding 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 enforceabl e 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) Ev idence 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 w ith 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 equiv alent). 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 shou ld 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/nonattainme nt 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 sourc es 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, ambien t 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 an d technological justification for alternative RACT, for long

- term averaging of VOC emission limits, or to support bubble proposals.