Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program |
|---|
|
Judith A. Enck
Federal Register
September 16, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57691-57696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23862]
[[Page 57691]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2011-0686, FRL-9465-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action
on a proposed 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 EPA is proposing to approve
is New Jersey's amendment to its I/M program to establish a new exhaust
emission test for gasoline fueled vehicles and the extension of the new
vehicle inspection exemption from 4 years to 5 years. EPA is proposing
approval of this SIP revision because it meets all applicable
requirements of the Clean Air Act and 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 October 17, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
R02-OAR-2011-0686, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.
Fax: 212-637-3901 .
Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30 excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2011-0686. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenna Salomone, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3741, salomone.jenna@epa.gov.
Table of Contents
I. What action is 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 Proposed SIP submittal?
IV. What are the I/M performance standard requirements and does New
Jersey's I/M program satisfy them?
V. Does New Jersey demonstrate noninterference with attainment and
maintenance under section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act?
VI. What are EPA's conclusions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to approve a revision, submitted by New Jersey on
December 15, 2009, and a supplemental revision, submitted by New Jersey
on October 12, 2010, 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 EPA with documentation
on the emission impacts that will result from proposed 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 a
new exhaust emission test for gasoline fueled vehicles; the extension
of the new vehicle inspection exemption from 4 years to 5 years; the
elimination of repair cost waivers; the increase in the inspection
frequency (to annual) for certain classes of commercial vehicles such
as limousines, taxis and jitneys; and the subjecting of light duty
diesel vehicles to emissions testing.
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, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm)
averaged over
[[Page 57692]]
an 8-hour period. 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. 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 23951), EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15,
2004. 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. In addition, 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. These counties were classified as moderate or above
ozone nonattainment areas under the pre-existing 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.
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, 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.
OBD is the subject of this proposed rulemaking action.
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) 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.
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.
EPA's revised I/M rule also permitted, under certain circumstances,
for states to delay implementation of OBD testing. If the state makes a
request to show cause to EPA for a delay, an extension of the deadline
for states to begin conducting mandatory OBD is permissible. The
revised implementation date represents ``the best the state can
reasonably do'' (66 FR 18159). EPA's final rule identifies factors that
may serve as a possible justification for states considering making a
request to the EPA to delay implementation of OBD I/M program checks
beyond the January 2002 deadline. Potential factors justifying such a
delay include contractual impediments, hardware or software
deficiencies, data management software deficiencies, the need for
additional training for the testing and repair industries, and the need
for public education or outreach.
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. In the January
22, 2002 Federal Register, (67 FR 2811), 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 EPA's final approval of New Jersey's enhanced I/M
program can be found in EPA's January 22, 2002 final approval notice.
III. What was included in New Jersey's proposed SIP submittal?
On December 15, 2009, 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. 7:27-15, 7:27B-5 and the Motor Vehicle
Commission rules at N.J.A.C. 13:20-7, 13:20-24, 13:20-26, 13:20-28,
13:20-29, 13:20-32, 13:20-33, 13:20-43, 13:20-44, 13:20-45, and
N.J.A.C. 13:21-15.8 and 13:21-15.12.
The proposed changes to New Jersey's I/M program include the
establishment of a new exhaust emission test for gasoline fueled
vehicles. The Two Speed Idle (TSI) test will replace both the
Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM5015) and 2500 Revolutions per Minute
(RPM) tests. The TSI test is a tailpipe test which checks the vehicle's
HC, CO, O2 and CO2 exhaust emissions
concentration levels at two different engine speeds, the regular idle
and a fast idle around 2500 RPM. The ASM5015
[[Page 57693]]
test measures the concentrations of HC, CO and NOX, in a
vehicle's tailpipe emissions when a vehicle is running under marginal
load and at a steady rate or RPM. The 2500 RPM test is a tailpipe test
that checks the vehicle's HC, CO, O2 and CO2
exhaust emissions concentration levels at 2500 RPM.
The proposed changes to New Jersey's I/M program also include: the
elimination of repair cost waivers, the increase in the inspection
frequency (to annual) for certain classes of commercial vehicles such
as limousines, taxis and jitneys, and the subjecting of light duty
diesel vehicles to emissions testing. 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.
On October 12, 2010, New Jersey submitted a supplemental I/M
program SIP revision which consisted of amendments to chapter 8 of
Title 39 of the Revised Statutes of the state of New Jersey at R.S.
39:8-1, 39:8-2, and 39:8-3. The submittal includes an extension of the
new vehicle inspection exemption from 4 years to 5 years and an
acknowledgement with supporting justification that New Jersey's
decentralized I/M network (the private inspection facilities, or PIFs)
is currently 96 percent as effective as New Jersey's centralized I/M
network (the centralized inspection facilities, or CIFs). PIFs were
previously assumed to be 80 percent as effective as CIFs, which New
Jersey considered to likely be very conservative in light of the
program and technology changes that were implemented in the years
following the 80 percent effectiveness assumption. In May 2010, New
Jersey authorized MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. to assess
improvements in effectiveness of the decentralized program and to
determine a reasonable effectiveness fraction that may be supported by
data and technical reasoning. MACTEC analyzed the effectiveness of the
decentralized PIF network relative to the CIF (centralized) network.
The relative effectiveness of PIFs was based on data collected from
PIFs and CIFs in 2009. As a result of the analysis, MACTEC determined
that New Jersey should increase the effectiveness factor for PIFs and
provided the following justifications:
Fail rates for OBD inspections in PIFs were found to be
nearly identical to those in CIFs;
An analysis of triggers for OBD tests performed in 2009
showed that over 99% of inspections in PIFs have no indications of
fraud;
New Jersey has implemented several additional OBD triggers
in the new program, which will further reduce the incidence of fraud.
New Jersey submitted to EPA the final report prepared by MACTEC
dated June 23, 2010 entitled ``New Jersey Motor Vehicle Inspection
Program PIF Effectiveness Study.''
IV. What are the performance standard requirements and does New
Jersey's I/M program satisfy them?
As part of its final rule for I/M requirements, EPA established a
``model'' program for areas that were required to implement enhanced I/
M programs. This model program is termed by 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 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. EPA allows for a margin of error of +/- 0.02 grams
per mile (gpm) in determining compliance with the performance standard.
Originally, 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, 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 is therefore now only required
to meet the ``low'' enhanced performance standard. The revised
performance standard modeling included as part of this submittal is
designed to show attainment of the low enhanced performance standard.
In accordance with the EPA's final rule for I/M requirements, a
state must design and implement its enhanced I/M program such that it
meets or exceeds, within +/- 0.02 gpm, a minimum performance standard.
The performance standard is expressed as average gpm 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.
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 EPA's mobile source
emission model. New Jersey utilized MOBILE 6.2.03 (dated September 24,
2003) in its analysis, which was the most current version at the time
the SIP revisions were submitted.
Table 1 below compares the Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standards
with both 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 proposed
Program element performance standard enhanced I/M program enhanced I/M program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Type......................... 100% centralized....... hybrid--70% centralized/ hybrid--70% centralized/
30% decentralized. 30% decentralized.
Credit Assumed for Decentralized NA..................... 80%.................... 96% .\1\
Program.
Program Start Date................... 1983 \2\............... 1974................... 1974.
Test Frequency....................... Annual................. Biennial............... Biennial.
New Vehicle Exemption................ None................... 4 Years................ 5 Years.
[[Page 57694]]
Emission Standards................... Those specified at 40 Initial ASM5015 exhaust Two-Speed Idle
CFR Part 85, Subpart W. emission standards. Standards of 1.2% for
carbon monoxide and
220ppm for HC.
Model Year (MY) Coverage............. 1968 and later MY...... All vehicles not All vehicles not
specifically exempt. specifically exempt.
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 (both light and heavy
lbs. GVWR). duty vehicles). duty vehicles).
Exhaust Emission Test................ Idle--1968-2050 MY..... OBD--1996 and later MY OBD--1996 and later MY
beginning 6/1/03. beginning 6/1/03.
ASM5015--1981-1995 MY Two-Speed Idle--1981-
amenable to dyno. 1995 MY.
testing. Idle--pre-1981 and
2500 RPM test--certain HDGVs.
exempt vehicles and
those 1981 and newer
MY not amenable to
dyno. testing.
Idle--pre-1981 and
HDGVs.
Visual Inspections................... Positive Crankcase Visual inspection of Visual inspection of
Ventilation (PCV) the catalytic the catalytic
valve--1968-1971 MY converter, presence of converter, presence of
inclusive a gas cap, and fuel a gas cap, and fuel
Exhaust Gas inlet restrictor--1975 inlet restrictor--1975
Recirculation (EGR) and newer (beginning and newer (beginning
valve--1972 and newer. calendar 1985). calendar 1985).
Evaporative System Function Checks... N/A.................... Gas Cap Testing--1971 Gas Cap Testing--1971-
and later vehicles \3\ 2000 MY inclusive \3\
(beginning calendar (beginning calendar
year 1998). year 1998).
Pre- 1981 MY Stringency.............. 20%.................... 30%.................... 30%.
Waiver Rate.......................... 3%..................... 3% \4\................. 0%.
Compliance Rate...................... 96%.................... 98%.................... 98%.
Evaluation Date \5\.................. January 1, 2002........ January 1, 2012........ January 1, 2012.
On-Road Testing...................... 0.5% of the subject 0.5% of the subject 0.5% of the subject
vehicle population or vehicle population or vehicle population or
20,000 vehicles 20,000 vehicles 20,000 vehicles
(whichever is less). (whichever is less). (whichever is less).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New Jersey conducted a study to assess the current effectiveness of its PIF network. The study concluded
that the PIF network is currently 96 percent as effective as the CIF network.
\2\ For programs with existing I/M programs, like New Jersey's basic I/M program.
\3\ Only those pre-1981 vehicles that were equipped with sealed gas caps will be subject to the gas cap check.
The State presumes that model year vehicles prior to 1970 were not equipped with a sealed gas cap.
\4\ The State assumed a zero percent waiver rate for pre-1981 vehicles as these vehicles are not eligible for a
waiver based on the NJMVC inspection rules.
\5\ For all scenarios, summer season and temperatures were used for VOC/NOX evaluations, while winter season and
temperatures were used for carbon monoxide evaluations.
I/M programs are designed and implemented to meet or exceed an
applicable minimum Federal performance standard. EPA's performance
standards are derived from MOBILE6 utilizing ``model'' inputs and local
characteristics (i.e., vehicle mix, fuel controls). Performance
standards are expressed as emissions levels, in area-wide average gpm
values, resulting from the I/M program. More conventionally,
performance standards are expressed as emission reductions, as compared
to a no I/M scenario. Although each enhanced I/M program must meet the
enhanced performance standard as specified in 40 CFR 51.351, the
performance standard emission factor results will vary for each state.
This variation is the result of the use of state-specific inputs such
as registration distribution and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) mix.
Other local parameters, such as fuel type, add to state variations in
determining the emission factors for EPA's performance standard
program. While I/M jurisdictions are allowed to adopt alternate design
features other than EPA's ``model'' inputs, compliance with the
applicable performance standard must be demonstrated for the
pollutant(s) that established I/M requirements.
In addition to the parameters and assumptions shown previously in
Table 1, New Jersey made other assumptions in order to complete its
performance standard and program evaluation modeling. Table 2 shows
what those assumptions were and what values where used to complete the
modeling:
Table 2--Low Enhanced Performance Standard Modeling Assumptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value used for average summer runs Value used for average winter runs
Modeling parameters (VOC and NOX) (carbon monoxide)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Temperature (F).......... 82.9.................................. 41.2.
Minimum Temperature (F).......... 66.3.................................. 26.7.
Absolute Humidity (grains/pound). 85.59................................. 20.00.
Speed............................ MOBILE6 Defaults...................... MOBILE6 Defaults.
Mechanic Training and yes--100%............................. yes--100%.
Certification.
[[Page 57695]]
NJ Low Emission Vehicle Program w/ Yes................................... Yes.
o ZEV Mandate.
Gasoline RVP (psi)............... 6.8................................... 15.
Oxygenated Reformulated Gasoline. 10% Ethanol........................... 10% Ethanol.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling performed by New Jersey and verified by EPA indicates that
there is no significant difference between emission factors for New
Jersey's existing and proposed enhanced I/M programs for ozone
precursors (VOCs and NOX). The new enhanced I/M program
results in a small decrease in the predicted carbon monoxide emission
factor relative to the existing enhanced I/M program. This demonstrates
that the proposed changes to the enhanced I/M program do not compromise
New Jersey's efforts to meet and/or maintain NAAQS for ozone or carbon
monoxide. The results of New Jersey's performance standard modeling
show that the proposed enhanced I/M program meets the USEPA low
enhanced performance standard. A summary of the modeling results is
found in Table 3. The values seen in Table 3 are expressed as total
mobile source emission factors.
Table 3--Low Enhanced Performance Standard Modeling Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon monoxide
Program type VOC (gpm) NOX (gpm) (gpm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USEPA Low Enhanced Performance Standard (2002)............ * 0.923 * 2.396 * 21.854
New Jersey Existing Enhanced I/M Program (2013)........... 0.349 0.687 10.045
New Jersey New Enhanced I/M Program (2013)................ 0.348 0.688 10.028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*EPA allows for a +/- 0.02 gpm margin of error in meeting the performance standard values.
EPA's Evaluation
EPA has reviewed New Jersey's proposed changes to its enhanced I/M
program that differ from the previous Federally approved program and
has determined that those changes satisfy the low enhanced performance
standard and are therefore approvable into the SIP. 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. Does New Jersey demonstrate noninterference with attainment and
maintenance under Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act?
Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the
requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(l) to be approved by 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.''
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. 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. Thus, for
example, modification of a SIP-approved measure may impact
NOX emissions, which may impact PM2.5 emissions.
The scope and rigor of an adequate section 110(l) demonstration of
noninterference depends on the air quality status of the area, the
potential impact of the revision on air quality, the pollutant(s)
affected, and the nature of the applicable CAA requirements.
New Jersey's modeling results indicate that there is no significant
difference between emission factors for New Jersey's existing and
proposed enhanced I/M programs for ozone precursors (VOCs and
NOX). The new enhanced I/M program results in an
insignificantly small increase in the predicted carbon monoxide
emission factor relative to the existing enhanced I/M program.
The increase is well below the EPA margin of error of +/- 0.02 gpm.
This demonstrates that the proposed changes to the enhanced I/M program
do not compromise New Jersey's efforts to meet and/or maintain NAAQS
for ozone or carbon monoxide.
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. EPA proposes to
find that New Jersey has satisfied the section 110(l) of the CAA
demonstration of noninterference.
VI. What are EPA's conclusions?
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 EPA's technical requirements for an
approvable Enhanced I/M program. 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 7:27-15, 7:27B-5, the Motor Vehicle
Commission rules at N.J.A.C. 13:20-7, 13:20-24, 13:20-26, 13:20-28,
13:20-29, 13:20-32, 13:20-33, 13:20-43, 13:20-44, 13:20-45, and
N.J.A.C. 13:21-15.8, 13:21-15.12 and the amendments to chapter 8 of
Title 39 of the Revised Statutes of the state of New Jersey at R.S.
39:8-1, 39:8-2, and 39:8-3 which incorporate New Jersey's motor vehicle
inspection program requirements. 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);
[[Page 57696]]
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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 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 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 EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 6, 2011.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2011-23862 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P