  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	SIP Completeness Checklist

State:  New Jersey

Date of Letter:  May 14, 2009 (as supplemented on July 13, 2009) 

Date Received:   May 26, 2009

Title:  NOx RACT Source-Specific SIP revision for the 

Naval Weapons Station Earle (NWSE)   

Reviewer's Name-:  Anthony (Ted) Gardella/Raymond Forde 

Review Date: July 22, 2009/Updated May 12, 2011

Result of Review: Complete 

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.

5/14/09 letter from Mark N. Mauriello, Acting Commissioner NJDEP to
George Pavlou, Acting RA, EPA Region 2



	* A formal letter from the Governor or designee requesting that EPA
propose approval of a proposed revision by parallel processing.





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.

5/12/09 letter from NJDEP’s Permit Bureau Chief to NWSE (Enclosure 2),
supplemental information on May 21, 2009 w/attached Conditions of
Approval Document with NOx limits and other compliance requirements. 



	* 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.

N.J.A.C. 7:27-19



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.

5/12/09 letter from NJDEP’s Permit Bureau Chief to NWSE w/attached
Conditions of Approval Document (Enclosure 2) and supplemental
information on May 21, 2009.



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.

NJDEP provided for public notice and hence opportunity for public
hearing (Enclosure 5). 



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.

Affidavit of Public Notice in NJ newspapers. Published on January 16,
2009 in The Star ledger Newspaper with 30 day comment period (Enclosure
6).



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.

There were no requests for a public hearing before, during, or after the
public hearing.  Therefore, no public hearing was conducted.



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

NJDEP responded to public comments - see Enclosure 2 and 7/13/09 letter
from NJDEP with revised response to comments document. 



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:

1) Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the revision.

5/12/09 letter from NJDEP’s Permit Bureau Chief to NWSE w/attached
Conditions of Approval Document (Enclosure 2) and supplemental
information on May 21, 2009.



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).

Public Notice (Enclosure 6) and NJDEP’s SIP Completeness Checklist
(Enclosure 1) 



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.

NJDEP’s SIP Completeness Checklist (Enclosure 1)



4) Demonstration that the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP
demonstration/visibility are protected if revision is approved and
implemented.

Not Applicable 



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.

Not Applicable



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.

5/12/09 letter from NJDEP’s Permit Bureau Chief to NWSE w/attached
Conditions of Approval Document (Enclosure 2) and supplemental
information on May 21, 2009.



7) Evidence that a revision contains emission limitations, work practice
standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to
ensure emission levels.

5/12/09 letter from NJDEP’s Permit Bureau Chief to NWSE w/attached
Conditions of Approval Document (Enclosure 2) and supplemental
information on May 21, 2009.



8) Compliance/enforcement strategies including how compliance will be
determined in practice, and at what frequency.

5/12/09 letter from NJDEP’s Permit Bureau Chief to NWSE w/attached
Conditions of Approval Document (Enclosure 2) and supplemental
information on May 21, 2009.



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.

See
桴⁥潦汬睯湩㩧䄠灰楬慣楴湯倠捡慫敧⠠湅汣獯牵⁥⤷
※䩎䕄鉐⁳䥓⁐潃灭敬整敮獳䌠敨正楬瑳⠠湅汣獯牵⁥
⤱ⴠ椠整⁭猣㘠愠摮㤠‮ܠഇ̍഍ഄ̍഍ഄ഍഍഍഍

഍

഍഍഍

഍

഍഍഍഍

