Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program, 57691-57696 [2011-23862]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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:
• https://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
WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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 https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
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 https://
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57691
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
E:\FR\FM\16SEP1.SGM
16SEP1
57692
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 preexisting 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 emissionrelated 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\16SEP1.SGM
16SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
57693
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.
WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 1—PERFORMANCE STANDARD AND NEW JERSEY’S ENHANCED PROGRAM DESIGNS
Program element
Low enhanced performance
standard
New Jersey’s existing enhanced
I/M program
New Jersey’s proposed enhanced
I/M program
Network Type .................................
100% centralized ..........................
Credit Assumed for Decentralized
Program.
Program Start Date ........................
Test Frequency ..............................
New Vehicle Exemption .................
NA .................................................
hybrid—70% centralized/30% decentralized.
80% ...............................................
hybrid—70% centralized/30% decentralized.
96% .1
1983 2 ............................................
Annual ...........................................
None .............................................
1974 ..............................................
Biennial .........................................
4 Years .........................................
1974.
Biennial.
5 Years.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16SEP1.SGM
16SEP1
57694
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PERFORMANCE STANDARD AND NEW JERSEY’S ENHANCED PROGRAM DESIGNS—Continued
Program element
Low enhanced performance
standard
New Jersey’s existing enhanced
I/M program
New Jersey’s proposed enhanced
I/M program
Emission Standards .......................
Those specified at 40 CFR Part
85, Subpart W.
Initial ASM5015 exhaust emission
standards.
Model Year (MY) Coverage ...........
1968 and later MY ........................
Vehicle Type Coverage .................
All light-duty gasoline-fueled vehicles and trucks (up to 8,500 lbs.
GVWR).
Idle—1968–2050 MY ....................
All vehicles not specifically exempt.
All gasoline-fueled vehicles and
trucks (both light and heavy
duty vehicles).
OBD—1996 and later MY beginning 6/1/03.
ASM5015—1981–1995 MY amenable to dyno. testing.
2500 RPM test—certain exempt
vehicles and those 1981 and
newer MY not amenable to
dyno. testing.
Idle—pre-1981 and HDGVs .........
Visual inspection of the catalytic
converter, presence of a gas
cap, and fuel inlet restrictor—
1975 and newer (beginning calendar 1985).
Gas Cap Testing—1971 and later
vehicles 3 (beginning calendar
year 1998).
30% ...............................................
3% 4 ..............................................
98% ...............................................
January 1, 2012 ............................
0.5% of the subject vehicle population or 20,000 vehicles
(whichever is less).
Two-Speed Idle Standards of
1.2% for carbon monoxide and
220ppm for HC.
All vehicles not specifically exempt.
All gasoline-fueled vehicles and
trucks (both light and heavy
duty vehicles).
OBD—1996 and later MY beginning 6/1/03.
Two-Speed Idle—1981–1995 MY.
Idle—pre-1981 and HDGVs.
Exhaust Emission Test ..................
Visual Inspections ..........................
Evaporative
Checks.
System
Function
Pre- 1981 MY Stringency ..............
Waiver Rate ...................................
Compliance Rate ...........................
Evaluation Date 5 ...........................
On-Road Testing ...........................
Positive Crankcase Ventilation
(PCV) valve—1968–1971 MY
inclusive
Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR)
valve—1972 and newer
N/A ................................................
20% ...............................................
3% .................................................
96% ...............................................
January 1, 2002 ............................
0.5% of the subject vehicle population or 20,000 vehicles
(whichever is less).
Visual inspection of the catalytic
converter, presence of a gas
cap, and fuel inlet restrictor—
1975 and newer (beginning calendar 1985).
Gas Cap Testing—1971–2000
MY inclusive 3 (beginning calendar year 1998).
30%.
0%.
98%.
January 1, 2012.
0.5% of the subject vehicle population or 20,000 vehicles
(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/NO evaluations, while winter season and temperatures were used
X
for carbon monoxide evaluations.
WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
Modeling parameters
Value used for average
summer runs
(VOC and NOX)
Maximum Temperature (F) ............................................................................................
Minimum Temperature (F) .............................................................................................
Absolute Humidity (grains/pound) .................................................................................
Speed .............................................................................................................................
Mechanic Training and Certification ..............................................................................
82.9 ....................................
66.3 ....................................
85.59 ..................................
MOBILE6 Defaults .............
yes—100% .........................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16SEP1.SGM
16SEP1
Value used for average
winter runs
(carbon monoxide)
41.2.
26.7.
20.00.
MOBILE6 Defaults.
yes—100%.
57695
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—LOW ENHANCED PERFORMANCE STANDARD MODELING ASSUMPTIONS—Continued
Modeling parameters
Value used for average
summer runs
(VOC and NOX)
NJ Low Emission Vehicle Program w/o ZEV Mandate .................................................
Gasoline RVP (psi) ........................................................................................................
Oxygenated Reformulated Gasoline .............................................................................
Yes .....................................
6.8 ......................................
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
Value used for average
winter runs
(carbon monoxide)
Yes.
15.
10% Ethanol.
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
VOC
(gpm)
Program type
USEPA Low Enhanced Performance Standard (2002) ..................................................
New Jersey Existing Enhanced I/M Program (2013) ......................................................
New Jersey New Enhanced I/M Program (2013) ...........................................................
NOX
(gpm)
* 0.923
0.349
0.348
* 2.396
0.687
0.688
Carbon
monoxide (gpm)
* 21.854
10.045
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.’’
WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 SIPapproved 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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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);
E:\FR\FM\16SEP1.SGM
16SEP1
WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
57696
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R02–OAR–2011–0687, FRL–9465–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New York;
Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection
and Maintenance Programs
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing action on a
proposed State Implementation Plan
revision submitted by the New York
State Department of Environmental
Conservation. This revision consists of
changes to New York’s motor vehicle
enhanced inspection and maintenance
program that would eliminate the
transient emission short test program as
it relates to the New York portion of the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY–NJ–CT 8-hour ozone
moderate nonattainment area. EPA is
proposing approval of this State
Implementation Plan 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 Number EPA–R02–
OAR–2011–0687, by one of the
following methods:
• https://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,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 No. EPA–R02–OAR–2011–0687.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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 or 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 https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
E:\FR\FM\16SEP1.SGM
16SEP1
]]>Agencies
[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:
https://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
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https://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 https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://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 https://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
