Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program |
|---|
|
Catherine R. McCabe
Environmental Protection Agency
6 October 2017
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46742-46748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21521]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0101, FRL-9968-91-Region 2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46743]]
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for New Jersey's
enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. New Jersey has made
several amendments to its I/M program to improve performance of the
program and has requested that the SIP be revised to include these
changes. Chief among the amendments the EPA is proposing to approve is
New Jersey's amendment to its I/M program to discontinue two-speed idle
tests on model year 1981-1995 light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests
on pre-1981 model year light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on
heavy duty gasoline vehicles and gas cap leak testing. In addition,
heavy duty gasoline vehicles equipped with on-board diagnostics (OBD)
will be subject to OBD testing with this revision. The EPA is proposing
approval of this SIP revision because it meets all applicable
requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's regulations and because
the revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards in the affected area. The
intended effect of this action is to maintain consistency between the
State-adopted rules and the federally approved SIP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-
OAR-2017-0101, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reema Loutan, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3760, or by email at
Loutan.Reema@epa.gov.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background Information
What are the Clean Air Act requirements for a moderate 8-hr
ozone nonattainment area?
History of the Ozone Standard and Area Designations
Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M Programs
III. What was included in New Jersey's SIP submittal?
IV. What are the I/M performance standard requirements and does New
Jersey's I/M program satisfy them?
V. What are New Jersey's I/M program benefits?
VI. What are the EPA's conclusions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
The EPA is proposing to approve a revision, submitted by New Jersey
on September 16, 2016, to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan
(SIP) pertaining to New Jersey's motor vehicle enhanced inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program. New Jersey provided the EPA with
documentation on the emission impacts that will result from changes to
New Jersey's enhanced I/M program including a comparison to the EPA I/M
performance standard. The revisions submitted by New Jersey include
discontinuing the two-speed idle tests on model year 1981-1995 light
duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on pre-1981 model year light duty
gasoline vehicles, idle tests on heavy duty gasoline vehicles and gas
cap leak testing; requiring OBD testing for heavy duty gasoline
vehicles equipped with on-board diagnostics (OBD); requiring
inspections for commercial vehicles; and requiring that re-inspections
of all vehicles be performed at New Jersey's decentralized I/M
facilities.
II. Background Information
What are the Clean Air Act requirements for a moderate 8-hr ozone
nonattainment area?
History of the Ozone Standard and Area Designations
In 1997, the EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per
million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period. The EPA set the 8-hour
ozone standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over
longer periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour
ozone standard was set. The EPA determined that the 8-hour standard
would be more protective of human health, especially with regard to
children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a
pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), the EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country, including the
State of New Jersey, with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard. These
actions became effective on June 15, 2004. Then on March 27, 2008 (73
FR 16436), the EPA revised the level of the 8-hour primary, health-
based standard to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm), to provide
increased protection for children and other ``at risk'' populations
against an array of ozone-related adverse health effects such as
decreased lung function and increased respiratory symptoms.
The New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area is composed of the following
counties: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth,
Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren. The New Jersey
portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, Atlantic City, PA-DE-MD-NJ
nonattainment area is composed of the following counties: Atlantic,
Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean and
Salem. All of these counties in both areas were classified as moderate
or above ozone nonattainment areas under the previous 1-hour ozone
standard. These designations triggered the requirements under section
182(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for moderate and above nonattainment
areas, including a requirement to submit an enhanced motor vehicle I/M
program.
CAA section 181(b)(2) requires the EPA Administrator to determine,
based on an area's design value (which represents air quality in the
area for the most recent 3-year period) as of an area's attainment
deadline, whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone
standard by that date. The statute provides a mechanism by which states
that meet certain criteria may request and be granted by the EPA
Administrator a 1-year extension of an area's attainment deadline. The
CAA also requires that areas that have not attained the standard by
their attainment deadlines be reclassified to either the next
``highest'' classification (e.g., marginal to moderate, moderate to
[[Page 46744]]
serious, etc.) or to the classifications applicable to the areas'
design value.
Under the original designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in July
2012, New Jersey was classified as marginal. However, New Jersey failed
to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable marginal attainment
deadline of July 20, 2015. Therefore, on May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697), the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT was reclassified
from marginal to moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, with a new 2008
ozone NAAQS attainment date of July 20, 2018. In that same action, the
EPA determined that the Philadelphia Area and Southern New Jersey
qualified for a 1-year extension of its attainment date, as provided in
section 181(a)(5) of the CAA and interpreted by regulation at 40 CFR
51.1107, and granted the requested extension. The EPA established the
new attainment date for the Philadelphia Area as July 20, 2016, to be
based on ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2013-2015
monitoring period.
Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance Under CAA
Section 110(l)
Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(l) to be approved by the EPA. Section
110(l) states:
The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171),
or any other applicable requirement of this Act.
The EPA interprets section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of
the CAA and to all areas of the country, whether attainment,
nonattainment, unclassifiable, or maintenance, for one or more of the
six criteria pollutants. The EPA also interprets section 110(l) to
require a demonstration addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/
or ambient concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision.
In the absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no
interference with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under
section 110(l), the EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to
substitute equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change
to a SIP approved program, as long as actual emissions in the air are
not increased. ``Equivalent'' emissions reductions mean reductions
which are equal to or greater than those reductions achieved by the
control measure approved in the active portion of the SIP. In order to
show that compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, modeling or
adequate justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent
reductions must represent actual, new emissions reductions achieved in
a contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control
measure, in order to preserve the status quo level of emission in the
air. In addition to being contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions
reductions must also be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and
surplus to be approved into the SIP. See Section V for information on
the state's 110(l) demonstration and I/M program benefits.
Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M Programs
The CAA requires certain states to implement an enhanced I/M
program to detect gasoline-fueled motor vehicles that exhibit excessive
emissions of certain air pollutants. The enhanced I/M program is
intended to help states meet federal health-based NAAQS for ozone and
carbon monoxide by requiring vehicles with excess emissions to have
their emissions control systems repaired. Section 182 of the CAA
requires I/M programs in those areas of the nation that are most
impacted by carbon monoxide and ozone pollution.
On April 5, 2001, the EPA published in the Federal Register
``Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements
Incorporating the On-Board Diagnostics Check'' (66 FR 18156). The
revised I/M rule requires that electronic checks of the On-Board
Diagnostics (OBD) system on model year 1996 and newer OBD-equipped
motor vehicles be conducted as part of states' motor vehicle I/M
programs. OBD is part of the sophisticated vehicle powertrain
management system and is designed to detect engine and transmission
problems that might cause vehicle emissions to exceed allowable limits.
The OBD system monitors the status of up to 11 emission control
related subsystems by performing either continuous or periodic
functional tests of specific components and vehicle conditions. The
first three testing categories--misfire, fuel trim, and comprehensive
components--are continuous, while the remaining eight only run after a
certain set of conditions has been met. The algorithms for running
these eight periodic monitors are unique to each manufacturer and
involve such things as ambient temperature as well as driving
conditions. Most vehicles will have at least five of the eight
remaining monitors (catalyst, evaporative system, oxygen sensor, heated
oxygen sensor, and exhaust gas recirculation or EGR system) while the
remaining three (air conditioning, secondary air, and heated catalyst)
are not necessarily applicable to all vehicles. When a vehicle is
scanned at an OBD-I/M test site, these monitors can appear as either
``ready'' (meaning the monitor in question has been evaluated), ``not
ready'' (meaning the monitor has not yet been evaluated), or ``not
applicable'' (meaning the vehicle is not equipped with the component
monitor in question).
The OBD system is also designed to fully evaluate the vehicle
emissions control system. If the OBD system detects a problem that may
cause vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times the Federal Test Procedure
standards, then the Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) or Check Engine
Light, is illuminated. By turning on the MIL, the OBD system notifies
the vehicle operator that an emission-related fault has been detected,
and the vehicle should be repaired as soon as possible, thus reducing
the harmful emissions contributed by that vehicle.
The EPA's revised OBD I/M rule applies to only those areas that are
required to implement I/M programs under the CAA, which includes the
aforementioned counties in New Jersey. This rule established a deadline
of January 1, 2002 for states to begin performing OBD checks on 1996
and newer model OBD-equipped vehicles and to require repairs to be
performed on those vehicles with malfunctions identified by the OBD
check.
New Jersey is required to have an enhanced I/M program pursuant to
the CAA, and consequently has adopted, and has been implementing an
enhanced I/M program statewide since December 13, 1999. On January 22,
2002, (67 FR 2811), the EPA fully approved New Jersey's enhanced I/M
program and the State's performance standard modeling as meeting the
applicable requirements of the CAA. Additional information on the EPA's
final approval of New Jersey's enhanced I/M program can be found in the
EPA's January 22, 2002, final approval notice.
III. What was included in New Jersey's SIP submittal?
On September 16, 2016, New Jersey submitted a revision to the State
of New Jersey's I/M program SIP. The submittal consists of new rules
and rule amendments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection's rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-14, 7:27-15, 7:27A-3, 7:27B-4,
7:27B-5 and the Motor Vehicle Commission rules at N.J.A.C. 13:20-7.1
through 7.6, 13:20-
[[Page 46745]]
26.12 and 26.16, 13:20-32.1 through 32.49, 13:20-33.1 through 33.50,
Appendix C, N.J.A.C 13:20-43.1, 43.2 and 43.2A, 43.4 through 43.8,
43.14, 43.16, and N.J.A.C 13:20-44.2, 44.3 and 44.10.
The changes to New Jersey's I/M program include the elimination of
exhaust emission tests or tailpipe testing for all gasoline motor
vehicles. OBD testing will be required for all vehicles, including
heavy duty gasoline vehicles, subject to inspection and required by the
EPA to be equipped with an OBD system. The two-speed idle tests on
model year 1981-1995 light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on pre-
1981 model year light duty gasoline vehicles and idle tests on heavy
duty gasoline vehicles will be discontinued.
The changes to New Jersey's I/M program also include procedures for
diesel exhaust after-treatment checks, standards for fuel leak checks
and replacement of the fuel cap leak test for gasoline-fueled vehicles
with a visual gas cap check to ensure that the gas cap is present. NJ
also submitted amendments to rules related to inspection requirements
and inspection procedures. For heavy-duty diesel powered vehicles, New
Jersey is repealing the rolling acceleration smoke opacity test, and
the power brake smoke opacity test, and retaining only the snap
acceleration smoke opacity test.
Enforcement related amendments include authorizing inspectors of
both gasoline-fueled and diesel-powered motor vehicles to fail a
vehicle if it is determined that there has been tampering with the
vehicle's emission controls. The New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection may also impose penalties for tampering with emission
controls on diesel vehicles. The New Jersey Diesel Emission Inspection
Center inspection forms will be replaced with daily electronic
reporting of diesel inspections, and private inspection facilities will
submit diesel inspection information through an electronic portal or
workstation.
New Jersey provided documentation on the emission impacts that will
result from proposed changes to New Jersey's I/M program, including a
comparison to the EPA I/M performance standard.
IV. What are the I/M performance standard requirements and does New
Jersey's I/M program satisfy them?
As part of its final rule for I/M requirements, the EPA established
a ``model'' program for areas that were required to implement enhanced
I/M programs. This model program is termed by the EPA as the ``I/M
performance standard'' and is defined by a specific set of program
elements. The purpose of the performance standard is to provide a gauge
by which the EPA can evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of each
state's enhanced I/M program. As such, states are required to
demonstrate that their enhanced I/M programs achieve applicable area-
wide emission levels for the pollutants of interest that are equal to,
or lower than, those which would be realized by the implementation of
the model program.
Originally, the EPA only designed one enhanced performance
standard, as specified at 40 CFR 51.351, and required all enhanced I/M
program areas to meet or exceed that standard. However, on September
18, 1995, the EPA promulgated the ``low'' enhanced performance
standard. The low enhanced performance standard is a less stringent
enhanced I/M performance standard established for those areas that have
an approved SIP for Rate of Progress (ROP) for 1996, and do not have a
disapproved plan for ROP for the period after 1996 or a disapproved
plan for attainment of the air quality standards for ozone or carbon
monoxide. New Jersey is currently demonstrating compliance with the CAA
requirements for ROP and attainment and can therefore use the ``low''
enhanced performance standard. The revised performance standard
modeling included as part of New Jersey's submittal is designed to show
attainment of the low enhanced performance standard.
In accordance with the EPA's final rule for I/M requirements (40
CFR part 51, subpart S), a state must design and implement its enhanced
I/M program such that it meets or exceeds a minimum performance
standard. The performance standard is expressed as average grams per
mile (gpm) or tons per day emission levels from area-wide highway
mobile sources as a result of the enhanced I/M program. Areas must meet
the performance standard for the pollutants that cause them to be
subject to the enhanced I/M requirements. New Jersey was required to
implement its enhanced I/M program because of its non-attainment status
for two criteria air pollutants, ozone (of which volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) are
precursors) and carbon monoxide.
The EPA's final rule on I/M requirements also requires that the
equivalency of the emission levels achieved by the state's enhanced I/M
program design compared to those of the performance standard must be
demonstrated using the most current version of the EPA's mobile source
emission model. The model New Jersey utilized in its analysis was
MOVES2014, which was the most current version of the EPA's mobile
source emission model at the time the SIP revisions were submitted.
Table 1 below compares the Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standards
with New Jersey's existing and proposed enhanced I/M programs.
Table 1--Performance Standard and New Jersey's Enhanced Program Designs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low enhanced New Jersey's existing New Jersey's new
Program element performance standard enhanced I/M program enhanced I/M program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Type......................... 100% centralized....... hybrid--70%, hybrid--70%,
centralized/30%, centralized/30%,
decentralized. decentralized.
Program Start Date................... 1983................... 1974................... 1974.
Regulatory Class Coverage for Source 100%, 94%, 88%......... 100%................... 100%, 97.0%, 94.0%.
types: 21, 31 and 32 \1\.
Overall I/M Program Effectiveness for 93.12%, 87.53%, 81.95%. 96%.................... 96.00%, 93.12%, 90.24%.
Source types: 21, 31 and 32 \2\.
Test Frequency....................... Annual................. Biennial............... Biennial.
New Vehicle Exemption................ None................... 5 Years................ 5 Years.
Model Year (MY) Coverage............. 1968 and later MY...... all vehicles not 1996 and later MY
specifically exempt.
[[Page 46746]]
Vehicle Type Coverage................ All light-duty gasoline- All gasoline-fueled All gasoline-fueled
fueled vehicles and vehicles and trucks vehicles and trucks
trucks (up to 8,500 (both light and heavy except non-OBD
lbs. GVWR). duty vehicles). equipped vehicles
greater than 8,500
lbs. GVWR.
Exhaust Emission Test................ Idle--1968-2050 MY..... OBD--1996 and later MY OBD--1996 and later MY.
beginning 6/1/03, Two-
Speed Idle--1981-1995
MY, Idle--pre-1981 and
HDGVs.
Evaporative System Function Checks... N/A.................... Gas Cap Testing--1971-- None.
2000 MY inclusive
(beginning calendar
year 1998).
Waiver Rate.......................... 3%..................... 0%..................... 0%.
Compliance Rate...................... 96%.................... 96%.................... 96%.
Evaluation Date...................... July 2018.............. July 2018.............. July 2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/M programs are designed and implemented to meet or exceed an
applicable minimum federal performance standard. To determine whether a
state's proposed program is projected to meet or exceed the relevant
performance standard specified in 40 CFR 51.351, the state performed
three modeling scenarios: \3\ A no-I/M case, the proposed program, and
the applicable I/M performance standard. More conventionally,
performance standards are expressed as emission reductions, as compared
to a no I/M scenario. The performance standard emission results will
vary for each state due to the use of state-specific inputs such as
registration distribution and fuel types. I/M jurisdictions are allowed
to adopt alternate design features other than the EPA's ``model''
inputs and must show compliance with the applicable performance
standard for the pollutant(s) that established I/M requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source Types included are: 21--passenger vehicles; 31--
passenger trucks; 32--light commercial trucks.
\2\ Overall I/M Program effectiveness is calculated as follows:
Compliance Factor = percent compliance rate x (100-percent waiver
rate) x regulatory class coverage adjustment.
\3\ Information on the three modeling scenarios can be found at
Performance Standard Modeling for New and Existing Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES Mobile
Source Emissions Model, EPA-420-B-14-006, January 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to complete its performance standard and program
evaluation modeling, New Jersey used the parameters and assumptions
shown previously in Table 1, as well as the assumption and values in
Table 2.
Table 2--Modeling Assumptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value used for average summer
Modeling parameters runs (VOC and NOX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Temperature (F)................ 83.4.
Minimum Temperature (F)................ 63.8.
Relative Humidity range (%)............ 50-86.8.
Activity Inputs (VMT, Speed Age New Jersey USEPA EIS MOVES
Distributions, Vehicle Populations, Inputs for 2018.
etc.).
Early NLEV and NJ Low Emission Vehicle Yes.
Program without ZEV Mandate.
Fuel Specifications.................... MOVES Defaults.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 shows the emissions reduction results from modeling the New
Jersey I/M program compared to the EPA low enhanced performance
standard. The emissions reductions achieved under New Jersey's new
proposed I/M program meet or exceed those achieved under the
performance standards.
Table 3--Low Enhanced Performance Standard Modeling Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon
Program type VOC + NOX monoxide
(tons/day) (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USEPA Low Enhanced Performance Standard 160.3 853.1
(2002).................................
New Jersey, No I/M Program (2018)....... 163.7 935.6
New Jersey Proposed I/M Program (2018).. 153.4 829.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey has demonstrated that the changes to their enhanced I/M
program will meet the performance standard requirements and will
therefore continue to achieve emission reductions necessary to attain
and maintain the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. Specifically, New
Jersey's modeling of the proposed I/M program resulted in
[[Page 46747]]
emission reductions of 153.4 tons per day VOC and NOX, and
829.1 tons/day CO which exceeds EPA's performance standards of 160.3
tons/day VOC and NOX and 853.1 tons/day CO.
EPA's Evaluation
The EPA has reviewed New Jersey's changes to its enhanced I/M
program that differ from the previous Federally approved program and
has determined that those changes meet relevant performance standards
and are therefore approvable into the SIP. The EPA will continue to
evaluate New Jersey's enhanced I/M program effectiveness through the
annual and biennial reports submitted by New Jersey in accordance with
40 CFR 51.366, ``Data Analysis and Reporting.''
V. What are New Jersey's I/M program benefits?
For SIP revisions that will or could potentially lead to a change
in emissions or ambient concentrations of a pollutant or its
precursors, the section 110(l) demonstration should address all
pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as
a result of the SIP revision. As indicated in Table 4, the I/M Program
Benefits modeling performed by New Jersey and verified by the EPA shows
an emissions reduction benefit shortfall of 2 tons per day between New
Jersey's existing and new enhanced I/M programs for ozone precursors
(VOCs and NOX), and 11.4 tons per day for carbon monoxide.
Shortfall is a term of art that means there are lower projected
benefits than what is currently in place. New Jersey needs to ``make
up'' for this decrease in projected emission reductions resulting from
the changes being made to the I/M program through the application of
programs not already included in the 8-hour ozone SIP. The decrease in
projected emission reductions from the changes in the I/M program is
calculated by running the MOVES2014 model for both the existing and
proposed new I/M programs for the evaluation year of 2018. New Jersey
addresses the emissions benefit shortfall by using a portion of the
emission benefits from the New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle Program
(NJLEV). The emission benefits from the NJLEV program are quantified by
additional MOVES2014 modeling that include scenarios with and without
NJLEV inputs. The difference in emissions between these MOVES2014
scenarios represents the estimates of the NJLEV emission benefits. The
emission reduction benefits from the NJLEV program are considered
contemporaneous because a new phase of the NJLEV rules began in 2015 to
incorporate more stringent evaporative and emissions standards. New
vehicles sold in New Jersey are meeting these more stringent NJLEV
rules ahead of EPA Tier 3 standards which are equivalent to NJLEV.
Additional control measures and strategies that New Jersey is relying
on to further improve air quality are:
Control of Petroleum Storage Tanks (N.J.A.C 7:27-16.2)
Electric Generating Rule (N.J.A.C 7:27-4.2, 10.2, 19.4)
Portable fuel Containers (N.J.A.C 7:27-24)
Voluntary Retrofits of Ferries (DERA/CMAQ Grants)
Phase 2 HEDD Rule for Electric Generating Units (N.J.A.C 7:27-19.29)
Continuation of the I/M Program for Diesel Vehicles (N.J.A.C 7:27-
14)
A summary of the I/M Program benefits modeling results is found in
Table 4.
Table 4--I/M Program Benefits Modeling Results--Based on 2018 Statewide
Onroad Emission Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission
Emission reductions
Model scenario reductions, carbon
VOC + NOX monoxide
(tons/day) (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. New Jersey Existing I/M Program 154.0 867.2
Without the NJLEV Program..............
B. New Jersey Proposed I/M Program 156.0 878.6
Without the NJLEV Program..............
C. New Jersey Proposed I/M Program with 153.4 829.1
NJLEV Program..........................
D. NJLEV Benefits for 2009 Model Year 0.3 5.1
That Were Claimed in a Previous Ozone
Attainment Demonstration SIP...........
E. SIP Emission Benefits Shortfall (From 2.0 11.4
I/M Program Changes) (B-A).............
F. NJLEV Benefits (B-C)................. 2.6 49.5
G. NJLEV Benefits Not Previously Claimed 2.3 44.4
(F-D)..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Evaluation
Based on the above discussion and the state's 110(l) demonstration,
EPA believes that the changes to the New Jersey's I/M program will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in either
the Northern or Southern New Jersey nonattainment areas and would not
interfere with any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and thus,
are approvable under CAA section 110(l).
VI. What are the EPA's conclusions?
The EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that New
Jersey has revised its I/M program in accordance with the requirements
of the CAA, 40 CFR part 51 and all of the EPA's technical requirements
for an approvable Enhanced I/M program. The EPA is proposing to approve
the rules and rule amendments to the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection's rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-14, 7:27-15, 7:27A-3,
7:27B-4, 7:27B-5 and the Motor Vehicle Commission rules at N.J.A.C.
13:20-7.1 through 7.6, 13:20-26.12 and 26.16, 13:20-32.1 through 32.49,
13:20-33.1 through 33.50, Appendix C, N.J.A.C 13:20-43.1, 43.2 and
43.2A, 43.4 through 43.8, 43.14, 43.16, and N.J.A.C 13:20-44.2, 44.3
and 44.10. The CAA gives states the discretion in program planning to
implement programs of the state's choosing as long as necessary
emission reductions are met.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under
[[Page 46748]]
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 6, 2017.
Catherine R. McCabe,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2017-21521 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P