Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program, 46742-46748 [2017-21521]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46742
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tracey Casburn, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at
(913) 551–7016, or by email at
casburn.tracey@epa.gov.
This
document proposes to take action on the
State of Missouri Infrastructure SIP
revision for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.
We have published a direct final rule
approving the State’s SIP revision (s) in
the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of
this Federal Register, because we view
this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipate no relevant adverse comment.
We have explained our reasons for this
action in the preamble to the direct final
rule. If we receive no adverse comment,
we will not take further action on this
proposed rule. If we receive adverse
comment, we will withdraw the direct
final rule and it will not take effect. We
would address all public comments in
any subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. We do not intend to
institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time. For
further information, please see the
information provided in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Volatile organic
carbon, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: September 21, 2017.
Cathy Stepp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2017–21525 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Oct 05, 2017
Jkt 244001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0515; FRL–9968–79–
Region 7]
Approval of Missouri Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Infrastructure
SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
elements of a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision from the State of Missouri
for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). Section 110 of the CAA
requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of each
new or revised NAAQS promulgated by
EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred
to as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. The
infrastructure requirements are designed
to ensure that the structural components
of each state’s air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state’s
responsibilities under the CAA. In the
‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this
Federal Register, we are approving the
state’s SIP revisions as a direct final rule
without a prior proposed rule. If we
receive no adverse comment, we will
not take further action on this proposed
rule.
DATES: Comments must be received by
November 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2017–0515, to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tracey Casburn, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at
(913) 551–7016, or by email at
casburn.tracey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
document proposes to take action on the
State of Missouri Infrastructure SIP
revision for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. We
have published a direct final rule
approving the State’s SIP revision(s) in
the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of
this Federal Register, because we view
this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipate no relevant adverse comment.
We have explained our reasons for this
action in the preamble to the direct final
rule. If we receive no adverse comment,
we will not take further action on this
proposed rule. If we receive adverse
comment, we will withdraw the direct
final rule and it will not take effect. We
would address all public comments in
any subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. We do not intend to
institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time. For
further information, please see the
information provided in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
Dated: September 21, 2017.
Cathy Stepp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2017–21529 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R02–OAR–2017–0101, FRL–9968–91–
Region 2]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection
and Maintenance Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
for New Jersey’s enhanced inspection
and maintenance (I/M) program. New
Jersey has made several amendments to
its I/M program to improve performance
of the program and has requested that
the SIP be revised to include these
changes. Chief among the amendments
the EPA is proposing to approve is New
Jersey’s amendment to its I/M program
to discontinue two-speed idle tests on
model year 1981–1995 light duty
gasoline vehicles, idle tests on pre-1981
model year light duty gasoline vehicles,
idle tests on heavy duty gasoline
vehicles and gas cap leak testing. In
addition, heavy duty gasoline vehicles
equipped with on-board diagnostics
(OBD) will be subject to OBD testing
with this revision. The EPA is proposing
approval of this SIP revision because it
meets all applicable requirements of the
Clean Air Act and the EPA’s regulations
and because the revision will not
interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the national ambient air
quality standards in the affected area.
The intended effect of this action is to
maintain consistency between the Stateadopted rules and the federally
approved SIP.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02–
OAR–2017–0101, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Oct 05, 2017
Jkt 244001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Reema Loutan, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3760, or by
email at Loutan.Reema@epa.gov.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background Information
What are the Clean Air Act requirements
for a moderate 8-hr ozone nonattainment
area?
History of the Ozone Standard and Area
Designations
Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M
Programs
III. What was included in New Jersey’s SIP
submittal?
IV. What are the I/M performance standard
requirements and does New Jersey’s I/M
program satisfy them?
V. What are New Jersey’s I/M program
benefits?
VI. What are the EPA’s conclusions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
The EPA is proposing to approve a
revision, submitted by New Jersey on
September 16, 2016, to the New Jersey
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
pertaining to New Jersey’s motor vehicle
enhanced inspection and maintenance
(I/M) program. New Jersey provided the
EPA with documentation on the
emission impacts that will result from
changes to New Jersey’s enhanced I/M
program including a comparison to the
EPA I/M performance standard. The
revisions submitted by New Jersey
include discontinuing the two-speed
idle tests on model year 1981–1995 light
duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on pre1981 model year light duty gasoline
vehicles, idle tests on heavy duty
gasoline vehicles and gas cap leak
testing; requiring OBD testing for heavy
duty gasoline vehicles equipped with
on-board diagnostics (OBD); requiring
inspections for commercial vehicles;
and requiring that re-inspections of all
vehicles be performed at New Jersey’s
decentralized I/M facilities.
II. Background Information
What are the Clean Air Act
requirements for a moderate 8-hr ozone
nonattainment area?
History of the Ozone Standard and Area
Designations
In 1997, the EPA revised the healthbased National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it
at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged
over an 8-hour period. The EPA set the
8-hour ozone standard based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that
ozone causes adverse health effects at
lower ozone concentrations and over
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
46743
longer periods of time than was
understood when the pre-existing 1hour ozone standard was set. The EPA
determined that the 8-hour standard
would be more protective of human
health, especially with regard to
children and adults who are active
outdoors, and individuals with a preexisting respiratory disease, such as
asthma.
On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), the
EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas
across the country, including the State
of New Jersey, with respect to the 8hour ozone standard. These actions
became effective on June 15, 2004. Then
on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), the
EPA revised the level of the 8-hour
primary, health-based standard to a
level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm),
to provide increased protection for
children and other ‘‘at risk’’ populations
against an array of ozone-related adverse
health effects such as decreased lung
function and increased respiratory
symptoms.
The New Jersey portion of the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area is
composed of the following counties:
Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon,
Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic,
Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren.
The New Jersey portion of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington, Atlantic City,
PA-DE-MD-NJ nonattainment area is
composed of the following counties:
Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape
May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer,
Ocean and Salem. All of these counties
in both areas were classified as
moderate or above ozone nonattainment
areas under the previous 1-hour ozone
standard. These designations triggered
the requirements under section 182(b) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for moderate
and above nonattainment areas,
including a requirement to submit an
enhanced motor vehicle I/M program.
CAA section 181(b)(2) requires the
EPA Administrator to determine, based
on an area’s design value (which
represents air quality in the area for the
most recent 3-year period) as of an
area’s attainment deadline, whether an
ozone nonattainment area attained the
ozone standard by that date. The statute
provides a mechanism by which states
that meet certain criteria may request
and be granted by the EPA
Administrator a 1-year extension of an
area’s attainment deadline. The CAA
also requires that areas that have not
attained the standard by their
attainment deadlines be reclassified to
either the next ‘‘highest’’ classification
(e.g., marginal to moderate, moderate to
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
46744
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
serious, etc.) or to the classifications
applicable to the areas’ design value.
Under the original designations for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in July 2012,
New Jersey was classified as marginal.
However, New Jersey failed to attain the
2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable
marginal attainment deadline of July 20,
2015. Therefore, on May 4, 2016 (81 FR
26697), the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT was
reclassified from marginal to moderate
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, with a new
2008 ozone NAAQS attainment date of
July 20, 2018. In that same action, the
EPA determined that the Philadelphia
Area and Southern New Jersey qualified
for a 1-year extension of its attainment
date, as provided in section 181(a)(5) of
the CAA and interpreted by regulation
at 40 CFR 51.1107, and granted the
requested extension. The EPA
established the new attainment date for
the Philadelphia Area as July 20, 2016,
to be based on ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 2013–2015
monitoring period.
Demonstrating Noninterference With
Attainment and Maintenance Under
CAA Section 110(l)
Revisions to SIP-approved control
measures must meet the requirements of
CAA section 110(l) to be approved by
the EPA. Section 110(l) states:
The Administrator shall not approve
a revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined
in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of this Act.
The EPA interprets section 110(l) to
apply to all requirements of the CAA
and to all areas of the country, whether
attainment, nonattainment,
unclassifiable, or maintenance, for one
or more of the six criteria pollutants.
The EPA also interprets section 110(l) to
require a demonstration addressing all
pollutants whose emissions and/or
ambient concentrations may change as a
result of the SIP revision. In the absence
of an attainment demonstration, to
demonstrate no interference with any
applicable NAAQS or requirement of
the CAA under section 110(l), the EPA
believes it is appropriate to allow states
to substitute equivalent emissions
reductions to compensate for any
change to a SIP approved program, as
long as actual emissions in the air are
not increased. ‘‘Equivalent’’ emissions
reductions mean reductions which are
equal to or greater than those reductions
achieved by the control measure
approved in the active portion of the
SIP. In order to show that compensating
emissions reductions are equivalent,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Oct 05, 2017
Jkt 244001
modeling or adequate justification must
be provided. The compensating,
equivalent reductions must represent
actual, new emissions reductions
achieved in a contemporaneous time
frame to the change of the existing SIP
control measure, in order to preserve the
status quo level of emission in the air.
In addition to being contemporaneous,
the equivalent emissions reductions
must also be permanent, enforceable,
quantifiable, and surplus to be approved
into the SIP. See Section V for
information on the state’s 110(l)
demonstration and I/M program
benefits.
Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M
Programs
The CAA requires certain states to
implement an enhanced I/M program to
detect gasoline-fueled motor vehicles
that exhibit excessive emissions of
certain air pollutants. The enhanced I/
M program is intended to help states
meet federal health-based NAAQS for
ozone and carbon monoxide by
requiring vehicles with excess
emissions to have their emissions
control systems repaired. Section 182 of
the CAA requires I/M programs in those
areas of the nation that are most
impacted by carbon monoxide and
ozone pollution.
On April 5, 2001, the EPA published
in the Federal Register ‘‘Amendments
to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program Requirements Incorporating the
On-Board Diagnostics Check’’ (66 FR
18156). The revised I/M rule requires
that electronic checks of the On-Board
Diagnostics (OBD) system on model year
1996 and newer OBD-equipped motor
vehicles be conducted as part of states’
motor vehicle I/M programs. OBD is
part of the sophisticated vehicle
powertrain management system and is
designed to detect engine and
transmission problems that might cause
vehicle emissions to exceed allowable
limits.
The OBD system monitors the status
of up to 11 emission control related
subsystems by performing either
continuous or periodic functional tests
of specific components and vehicle
conditions. The first three testing
categories—misfire, fuel trim, and
comprehensive components—are
continuous, while the remaining eight
only run after a certain set of conditions
has been met. The algorithms for
running these eight periodic monitors
are unique to each manufacturer and
involve such things as ambient
temperature as well as driving
conditions. Most vehicles will have at
least five of the eight remaining
monitors (catalyst, evaporative system,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
oxygen sensor, heated oxygen sensor,
and exhaust gas recirculation or EGR
system) while the remaining three (air
conditioning, secondary air, and heated
catalyst) are not necessarily applicable
to all vehicles. When a vehicle is
scanned at an OBD–I/M test site, these
monitors can appear as either ‘‘ready’’
(meaning the monitor in question has
been evaluated), ‘‘not ready’’ (meaning
the monitor has not yet been evaluated),
or ‘‘not applicable’’ (meaning the
vehicle is not equipped with the
component monitor in question).
The OBD system is also designed to
fully evaluate the vehicle emissions
control system. If the OBD system
detects a problem that may cause
vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times
the Federal Test Procedure standards,
then the Malfunction Indicator Light
(MIL) or Check Engine Light, is
illuminated. By turning on the MIL, the
OBD system notifies the vehicle
operator that an emission-related fault
has been detected, and the vehicle
should be repaired as soon as possible,
thus reducing the harmful emissions
contributed by that vehicle.
The EPA’s revised OBD I/M rule
applies to only those areas that are
required to implement I/M programs
under the CAA, which includes the
aforementioned counties in New Jersey.
This rule established a deadline of
January 1, 2002 for states to begin
performing OBD checks on 1996 and
newer model OBD-equipped vehicles
and to require repairs to be performed
on those vehicles with malfunctions
identified by the OBD check.
New Jersey is required to have an
enhanced I/M program pursuant to the
CAA, and consequently has adopted,
and has been implementing an
enhanced I/M program statewide since
December 13, 1999. On January 22,
2002, (67 FR 2811), the EPA fully
approved New Jersey’s enhanced I/M
program and the State’s performance
standard modeling as meeting the
applicable requirements of the CAA.
Additional information on the EPA’s
final approval of New Jersey’s enhanced
I/M program can be found in the EPA’s
January 22, 2002, final approval notice.
III. What was included in New Jersey’s
SIP submittal?
On September 16, 2016, New Jersey
submitted a revision to the State of New
Jersey’s I/M program SIP. The submittal
consists of new rules and rule
amendments to the New Jersey
Department of Environmental
Protection’s rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27–14,
7:27–15, 7:27A–3, 7:27B–4, 7:27B–5 and
the Motor Vehicle Commission rules at
N.J.A.C. 13:20–7.1 through 7.6, 13:20–
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
26.12 and 26.16, 13:20–32.1 through
32.49, 13:20–33.1 through 33.50,
Appendix C, N.J.A.C 13:20–43.1, 43.2
and 43.2A, 43.4 through 43.8, 43.14,
43.16, and N.J.A.C 13:20–44.2, 44.3 and
44.10.
The changes to New Jersey’s I/M
program include the elimination of
exhaust emission tests or tailpipe testing
for all gasoline motor vehicles. OBD
testing will be required for all vehicles,
including heavy duty gasoline vehicles,
subject to inspection and required by
the EPA to be equipped with an OBD
system. The two-speed idle tests on
model year 1981–1995 light duty
gasoline vehicles, idle tests on pre-1981
model year light duty gasoline vehicles
and idle tests on heavy duty gasoline
vehicles will be discontinued.
The changes to New Jersey’s I/M
program also include procedures for
diesel exhaust after-treatment checks,
standards for fuel leak checks and
replacement of the fuel cap leak test for
gasoline-fueled vehicles with a visual
gas cap check to ensure that the gas cap
is present. NJ also submitted
amendments to rules related to
inspection requirements and inspection
procedures. For heavy-duty diesel
powered vehicles, New Jersey is
repealing the rolling acceleration smoke
opacity test, and the power brake smoke
opacity test, and retaining only the snap
acceleration smoke opacity test.
Enforcement related amendments
include authorizing inspectors of both
gasoline-fueled and diesel-powered
motor vehicles to fail a vehicle if it is
determined that there has been
tampering with the vehicle’s emission
controls. The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection may also
impose penalties for tampering with
emission controls on diesel vehicles.
The New Jersey Diesel Emission
Inspection Center inspection forms will
be replaced with daily electronic
reporting of diesel inspections, and
private inspection facilities will submit
diesel inspection information through
an electronic portal or workstation.
New Jersey provided documentation
on the emission impacts that will result
from proposed changes to New Jersey’s
I/M program, including a comparison to
the EPA I/M performance standard.
IV. What are the I/M performance
standard requirements and does New
Jersey’s I/M program satisfy them?
As part of its final rule for I/M
requirements, the EPA established a
‘‘model’’ program for areas that were
required to implement enhanced I/M
programs. This model program is
termed by the EPA as the ‘‘I/M
performance standard’’ and is defined
by a specific set of program elements.
The purpose of the performance
standard is to provide a gauge by which
the EPA can evaluate the adequacy and
effectiveness of each state’s enhanced I/
M program. As such, states are required
to demonstrate that their enhanced I/M
programs achieve applicable area-wide
emission levels for the pollutants of
interest that are equal to, or lower than,
those which would be realized by the
implementation of the model program.
Originally, the EPA only designed one
enhanced performance standard, as
specified at 40 CFR 51.351, and required
all enhanced I/M program areas to meet
or exceed that standard. However, on
September 18, 1995, the EPA
promulgated the ‘‘low’’ enhanced
performance standard. The low
enhanced performance standard is a less
stringent enhanced I/M performance
standard established for those areas that
have an approved SIP for Rate of
Progress (ROP) for 1996, and do not
have a disapproved plan for ROP for the
period after 1996 or a disapproved plan
for attainment of the air quality
standards for ozone or carbon
46745
monoxide. New Jersey is currently
demonstrating compliance with the
CAA requirements for ROP and
attainment and can therefore use the
‘‘low’’ enhanced performance standard.
The revised performance standard
modeling included as part of New
Jersey’s submittal is designed to show
attainment of the low enhanced
performance standard.
In accordance with the EPA’s final
rule for I/M requirements (40 CFR part
51, subpart S), a state must design and
implement its enhanced I/M program
such that it meets or exceeds a
minimum performance standard. The
performance standard is expressed as
average grams per mile (gpm) or tons
per day emission levels from area-wide
highway mobile sources as a result of
the enhanced I/M program. Areas must
meet the performance standard for the
pollutants that cause them to be subject
to the enhanced I/M requirements. New
Jersey was required to implement its
enhanced I/M program because of its
non-attainment status for two criteria air
pollutants, ozone (of which volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) are precursors) and
carbon monoxide.
The EPA’s final rule on I/M
requirements also requires that the
equivalency of the emission levels
achieved by the state’s enhanced I/M
program design compared to those of
the performance standard must be
demonstrated using the most current
version of the EPA’s mobile source
emission model. The model New Jersey
utilized in its analysis was MOVES2014,
which was the most current version of
the EPA’s mobile source emission
model at the time the SIP revisions were
submitted.
Table 1 below compares the Low
Enhanced I/M Performance Standards
with New Jersey’s existing and proposed
enhanced I/M programs.
TABLE 1—PERFORMANCE STANDARD AND NEW JERSEY’S ENHANCED PROGRAM DESIGNS
Low enhanced performance
standard
New Jersey’s existing enhanced
I/M program
New Jersey’s new enhanced
I/M program
Network Type .................................
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Program element
100% centralized ..........................
Program Start Date ........................
Regulatory Class Coverage for
Source types: 21, 31 and 32 1.
Overall I/M Program Effectiveness
for Source types: 21, 31 and
32 2.
Test Frequency ..............................
New Vehicle Exemption .................
Model Year (MY) Coverage ...........
1983 ..............................................
100%, 94%, 88% ..........................
hybrid—70%,
centralized/30%,
decentralized.
1974 ..............................................
100% .............................................
hybrid—70%,
centralized/30%,
decentralized.
1974.
100%, 97.0%, 94.0%.
93.12%, 87.53%, 81.95% .............
96% ...............................................
96.00%, 93.12%, 90.24%.
Annual ...........................................
None .............................................
1968 and later MY ........................
Biennial .........................................
5 Years .........................................
all vehicles not specifically exempt.
Biennial.
5 Years.
1996 and later MY
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Oct 05, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
46746
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / 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 new enhanced
I/M program
Vehicle Type Coverage .................
All light-duty gasoline-fueled vehicles and trucks (up to 8,500 lbs.
GVWR).
All gasoline-fueled vehicles and
trucks (both light and heavy
duty vehicles).
Exhaust Emission Test ..................
Idle—1968–2050 MY ....................
Evaporative
Checks.
Function
N/A ................................................
Waiver Rate ...................................
Compliance Rate ...........................
Evaluation Date .............................
3% .................................................
96% ...............................................
July 2018 ......................................
OBD—1996 and later MY beginning 6/1/03, Two-Speed Idle—
1981–1995 MY, Idle—pre-1981
and HDGVs.
Gas Cap Testing—1971—2000
MY inclusive (beginning calendar year 1998).
0% .................................................
96% ...............................................
July 2018 ......................................
All gasoline-fueled vehicles and
trucks
except
non-OBD
equipped vehicles greater than
8,500 lbs. GVWR.
OBD—1996 and later MY.
System
I/M programs are designed and
implemented to meet or exceed an
applicable minimum federal
performance standard. To determine
whether a state’s proposed program is
projected to meet or exceed the relevant
performance standard specified in 40
CFR 51.351, the state performed three
modeling scenarios: 3 A no-I/M case, the
proposed program, and the applicable I/
M performance standard. More
conventionally, performance standards
are expressed as emission reductions, as
compared to a no I/M scenario. The
performance standard emission results
will vary for each state due to the use
of state-specific inputs such as
registration distribution and fuel types.
I/M jurisdictions are allowed to adopt
alternate design features other than the
EPA’s ‘‘model’’ inputs and must show
compliance with the applicable
None.
0%.
96%.
July 2018.
performance standard for the
pollutant(s) that established I/M
requirements.
In order to complete its performance
standard and program evaluation
modeling, New Jersey used the
parameters and assumptions shown
previously in Table 1, as well as the
assumption and values in Table 2.
TABLE 2—MODELING ASSUMPTIONS
Value used for average summer runs
(VOC and NOX)
Modeling parameters
Maximum Temperature (F) .......................................................................
Minimum Temperature (F) ........................................................................
Relative Humidity range (%) ....................................................................
Activity Inputs (VMT, Speed Age Distributions, Vehicle Populations,
etc.).
Early NLEV and NJ Low Emission Vehicle Program without ZEV Mandate.
Fuel Specifications ...................................................................................
Table 3 shows the emissions
reduction results from modeling the
New Jersey I/M program compared to
83.4.
63.8.
50–86.8.
New Jersey USEPA EIS MOVES Inputs for 2018.
Yes.
MOVES Defaults.
the EPA low enhanced performance
standard. The emissions reductions
achieved under New Jersey’s new
proposed I/M program meet or exceed
those achieved under the performance
standards.
TABLE 3—LOW ENHANCED PERFORMANCE STANDARD MODELING RESULTS
VOC + NOX
(tons/day)
Program type
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
USEPA Low Enhanced Performance Standard (2002) ..........................................................................................
New Jersey, No I/M Program (2018) ......................................................................................................................
New Jersey Proposed I/M Program (2018) .............................................................................................................
160.3
163.7
153.4
Carbon
monoxide
(tons/day)
853.1
935.6
829.1
New Jersey has demonstrated that the
changes to their enhanced I/M program
will meet the performance standard
requirements and will therefore
continue to achieve emission reductions
necessary to attain and maintain the
NAAQS for all criteria pollutants.
Specifically, New Jersey’s modeling of
the proposed I/M program resulted in
1 Source Types included are: 21—passenger
vehicles; 31—passenger trucks; 32—light
commercial trucks.
2 Overall I/M Program effectiveness is calculated
as follows: Compliance Factor = percent
compliance rate × (100¥percent waiver rate) ×
regulatory class coverage adjustment.
3 Information on the three modeling scenarios can
be found at Performance Standard Modeling for
New and Existing Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES
Mobile Source Emissions Model, EPA–420–B–14–
006, January 2014.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Oct 05, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
46747
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
emission reductions of 153.4 tons per
day VOC and NOX, and 829.1 tons/day
CO which exceeds EPA’s performance
standards of 160.3 tons/day VOC and
NOX and 853.1 tons/day CO.
EPA’s Evaluation
The EPA has reviewed New Jersey’s
changes to its enhanced I/M program
that differ from the previous Federally
approved program and has determined
that those changes meet relevant
performance standards and are therefore
approvable into the SIP. The EPA will
continue to evaluate New Jersey’s
enhanced I/M program effectiveness
through the annual and biennial reports
submitted by New Jersey in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.366, ‘‘Data Analysis and
Reporting.’’
V. What are New Jersey’s I/M program
benefits?
For SIP revisions that will or could
potentially lead to a change in
emissions or ambient concentrations of
a pollutant or its precursors, the section
110(l) demonstration should address all
pollutants whose emissions and/or
ambient concentrations may change as a
result of the SIP revision. As indicated
in Table 4, the I/M Program Benefits
modeling performed by New Jersey and
verified by the EPA shows an emissions
reduction benefit shortfall of 2 tons per
day between New Jersey’s existing and
new enhanced I/M programs for ozone
precursors (VOCs and NOX), and 11.4
tons per day for carbon monoxide.
Shortfall is a term of art that means
there are lower projected benefits than
what is currently in place. New Jersey
needs to ‘‘make up’’ for this decrease in
projected emission reductions resulting
from the changes being made to the I/
M program through the application of
programs not already included in the 8hour ozone SIP. The decrease in
projected emission reductions from the
changes in the I/M program is
calculated by running the MOVES2014
model for both the existing and
proposed new I/M programs for the
evaluation year of 2018. New Jersey
addresses the emissions benefit shortfall
by using a portion of the emission
benefits from the New Jersey Low
Emission Vehicle Program (NJLEV). The
emission benefits from the NJLEV
program are quantified by additional
MOVES2014 modeling that include
scenarios with and without NJLEV
inputs. The difference in emissions
between these MOVES2014 scenarios
represents the estimates of the NJLEV
emission benefits. The emission
reduction benefits from the NJLEV
program are considered
contemporaneous because a new phase
of the NJLEV rules began in 2015 to
incorporate more stringent evaporative
and emissions standards. New vehicles
sold in New Jersey are meeting these
more stringent NJLEV rules ahead of
EPA Tier 3 standards which are
equivalent to NJLEV. Additional control
measures and strategies that New Jersey
is relying on to further improve air
quality are:
Control of Petroleum Storage Tanks (N.J.A.C
7:27–16.2)
Electric Generating Rule (N.J.A.C 7:27–4.2,
10.2, 19.4)
Portable fuel Containers (N.J.A.C 7:27–24)
Voluntary Retrofits of Ferries (DERA/CMAQ
Grants)
Phase 2 HEDD Rule for Electric Generating
Units (N.J.A.C 7:27–19.29)
Continuation of the I/M Program for Diesel
Vehicles (N.J.A.C 7:27–14)
A summary of the I/M Program
benefits modeling results is found in
Table 4.
TABLE 4—I/M PROGRAM BENEFITS MODELING RESULTS—BASED ON 2018 STATEWIDE ONROAD EMISSION DATA
Emission
reductions,
VOC + NOX
(tons/day)
Model scenario
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
A. New Jersey Existing I/M Program Without the NJLEV Program .......................................................................
B. New Jersey Proposed I/M Program Without the NJLEV Program .....................................................................
C. New Jersey Proposed I/M Program with NJLEV Program ................................................................................
D. NJLEV Benefits for 2009 Model Year That Were Claimed in a Previous Ozone Attainment Demonstration
SIP ........................................................................................................................................................................
E. SIP Emission Benefits Shortfall (From I/M Program Changes) (B–A) ...............................................................
F. NJLEV Benefits (B–C) .........................................................................................................................................
G. NJLEV Benefits Not Previously Claimed (F–D) .................................................................................................
EPA’s Evaluation
Based on the above discussion and
the state’s 110(l) demonstration, EPA
believes that the changes to the New
Jersey’s I/M program will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of any
of the NAAQS in either the Northern or
Southern New Jersey nonattainment
areas and would not interfere with any
other applicable requirement of the
CAA, and thus, are approvable under
CAA section 110(l).
VI. What are the EPA’s conclusions?
The EPA’s review of the materials
submitted indicates that New Jersey has
revised its I/M program in accordance
with the requirements of the CAA, 40
CFR part 51 and all of the EPA’s
technical requirements for an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Oct 05, 2017
Jkt 244001
approvable Enhanced I/M program. The
EPA is proposing to approve the rules
and rule amendments to the New Jersey
Department of Environmental
Protection’s rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27–14,
7:27–15, 7:27A–3, 7:27B–4, 7:27B–5 and
the Motor Vehicle Commission rules at
N.J.A.C. 13:20–7.1 through 7.6, 13:20–
26.12 and 26.16, 13:20–32.1 through
32.49, 13:20–33.1 through 33.50,
Appendix C, N.J.A.C 13:20–43.1, 43.2
and 43.2A, 43.4 through 43.8, 43.14,
43.16, and N.J.A.C 13:20–44.2, 44.3 and
44.10. The CAA gives states the
discretion in program planning to
implement programs of the state’s
choosing as long as necessary emission
reductions are met.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Emission
reductions
carbon
monoxide
(tons/day)
154.0
156.0
153.4
867.2
878.6
829.1
0.3
2.0
2.6
2.3
5.1
11.4
49.5
44.4
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
46748
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and the EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Oct 05, 2017
Jkt 244001
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by December 11,
2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 6, 2017.
Catherine R. McCabe,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2017–21521 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–BB46
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 6-Month Extension of Final
Determination on the Proposed
Threatened Status for the Louisiana
Pinesnake
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the
comment period.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
6-month extension of the final
determination of whether to list the
Louisiana pinesnake (Pituophis
ruthveni) as a threatened species. We
also reopen the comment period on the
proposed rule to list the species for an
additional 30 days. We are taking this
action based on substantial
disagreement regarding available
information related to the interpretation
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the available survey data used to
determine the Louisiana pinesnake’s
status and trends. Comments previously
submitted need not be resubmitted as
they are already incorporated into the
public record and will be fully
considered in the final rule. We will
submit a final listing determination to
the Federal Register for publication on
or before April 6, 2018.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published October 6,
2016 (81 FR 69454), is reopened. We
will accept comments received or
postmarked on or before November 6,
2017. If you comment using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES),
you must submit your comments by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You
may obtain copies of the proposed rule
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121. Copies of the
proposed rule are also available at
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/
lafayette/.
Comment submission: You may
submit comments by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter the docket number for this
proposed rule, which is FWS–R4–ES–
2016–0121. Then click on the Search
button. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ Please
ensure that you have found the correct
rulemaking before submitting your
comment.
2. U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275
Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph Ranson, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana
Ecological Services Office, 646
Cajundome Blvd., Suite 400, Lafayette,
LA; telephone 337–291–3101. Persons
who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 6, 2016 (81 FR 69454), we
published under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act;
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), a proposed rule
to add the Louisiana pinesnake as a
threatened species to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in
title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (50 CFR 17.11(h)). That
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46742-46748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21521]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0101, FRL-9968-91-Region 2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46743]]
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for New Jersey's
enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. New Jersey has made
several amendments to its I/M program to improve performance of the
program and has requested that the SIP be revised to include these
changes. Chief among the amendments the EPA is proposing to approve is
New Jersey's amendment to its I/M program to discontinue two-speed idle
tests on model year 1981-1995 light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests
on pre-1981 model year light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on
heavy duty gasoline vehicles and gas cap leak testing. In addition,
heavy duty gasoline vehicles equipped with on-board diagnostics (OBD)
will be subject to OBD testing with this revision. The EPA is proposing
approval of this SIP revision because it meets all applicable
requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's regulations and because
the revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards in the affected area. The
intended effect of this action is to maintain consistency between the
State-adopted rules and the federally approved SIP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-
OAR-2017-0101, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reema Loutan, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3760, or by email at
Loutan.Reema@epa.gov.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background Information
What are the Clean Air Act requirements for a moderate 8-hr
ozone nonattainment area?
History of the Ozone Standard and Area Designations
Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M Programs
III. What was included in New Jersey's SIP submittal?
IV. What are the I/M performance standard requirements and does New
Jersey's I/M program satisfy them?
V. What are New Jersey's I/M program benefits?
VI. What are the EPA's conclusions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
The EPA is proposing to approve a revision, submitted by New Jersey
on September 16, 2016, to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan
(SIP) pertaining to New Jersey's motor vehicle enhanced inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program. New Jersey provided the EPA with
documentation on the emission impacts that will result from changes to
New Jersey's enhanced I/M program including a comparison to the EPA I/M
performance standard. The revisions submitted by New Jersey include
discontinuing the two-speed idle tests on model year 1981-1995 light
duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on pre-1981 model year light duty
gasoline vehicles, idle tests on heavy duty gasoline vehicles and gas
cap leak testing; requiring OBD testing for heavy duty gasoline
vehicles equipped with on-board diagnostics (OBD); requiring
inspections for commercial vehicles; and requiring that re-inspections
of all vehicles be performed at New Jersey's decentralized I/M
facilities.
II. Background Information
What are the Clean Air Act requirements for a moderate 8-hr ozone
nonattainment area?
History of the Ozone Standard and Area Designations
In 1997, the EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per
million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period. The EPA set the 8-hour
ozone standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over
longer periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour
ozone standard was set. The EPA determined that the 8-hour standard
would be more protective of human health, especially with regard to
children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a
pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), the EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country, including the
State of New Jersey, with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard. These
actions became effective on June 15, 2004. Then on March 27, 2008 (73
FR 16436), the EPA revised the level of the 8-hour primary, health-
based standard to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm), to provide
increased protection for children and other ``at risk'' populations
against an array of ozone-related adverse health effects such as
decreased lung function and increased respiratory symptoms.
The New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area is composed of the following
counties: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth,
Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren. The New Jersey
portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, Atlantic City, PA-DE-MD-NJ
nonattainment area is composed of the following counties: Atlantic,
Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean and
Salem. All of these counties in both areas were classified as moderate
or above ozone nonattainment areas under the previous 1-hour ozone
standard. These designations triggered the requirements under section
182(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for moderate and above nonattainment
areas, including a requirement to submit an enhanced motor vehicle I/M
program.
CAA section 181(b)(2) requires the EPA Administrator to determine,
based on an area's design value (which represents air quality in the
area for the most recent 3-year period) as of an area's attainment
deadline, whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone
standard by that date. The statute provides a mechanism by which states
that meet certain criteria may request and be granted by the EPA
Administrator a 1-year extension of an area's attainment deadline. The
CAA also requires that areas that have not attained the standard by
their attainment deadlines be reclassified to either the next
``highest'' classification (e.g., marginal to moderate, moderate to
[[Page 46744]]
serious, etc.) or to the classifications applicable to the areas'
design value.
Under the original designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in July
2012, New Jersey was classified as marginal. However, New Jersey failed
to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable marginal attainment
deadline of July 20, 2015. Therefore, on May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697), the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT was reclassified
from marginal to moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, with a new 2008
ozone NAAQS attainment date of July 20, 2018. In that same action, the
EPA determined that the Philadelphia Area and Southern New Jersey
qualified for a 1-year extension of its attainment date, as provided in
section 181(a)(5) of the CAA and interpreted by regulation at 40 CFR
51.1107, and granted the requested extension. The EPA established the
new attainment date for the Philadelphia Area as July 20, 2016, to be
based on ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2013-2015
monitoring period.
Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance Under CAA
Section 110(l)
Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(l) to be approved by the EPA. Section
110(l) states:
The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171),
or any other applicable requirement of this Act.
The EPA interprets section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of
the CAA and to all areas of the country, whether attainment,
nonattainment, unclassifiable, or maintenance, for one or more of the
six criteria pollutants. The EPA also interprets section 110(l) to
require a demonstration addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/
or ambient concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision.
In the absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no
interference with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under
section 110(l), the EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to
substitute equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change
to a SIP approved program, as long as actual emissions in the air are
not increased. ``Equivalent'' emissions reductions mean reductions
which are equal to or greater than those reductions achieved by the
control measure approved in the active portion of the SIP. In order to
show that compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, modeling or
adequate justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent
reductions must represent actual, new emissions reductions achieved in
a contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control
measure, in order to preserve the status quo level of emission in the
air. In addition to being contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions
reductions must also be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and
surplus to be approved into the SIP. See Section V for information on
the state's 110(l) demonstration and I/M program benefits.
Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M Programs
The CAA requires certain states to implement an enhanced I/M
program to detect gasoline-fueled motor vehicles that exhibit excessive
emissions of certain air pollutants. The enhanced I/M program is
intended to help states meet federal health-based NAAQS for ozone and
carbon monoxide by requiring vehicles with excess emissions to have
their emissions control systems repaired. Section 182 of the CAA
requires I/M programs in those areas of the nation that are most
impacted by carbon monoxide and ozone pollution.
On April 5, 2001, the EPA published in the Federal Register
``Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements
Incorporating the On-Board Diagnostics Check'' (66 FR 18156). The
revised I/M rule requires that electronic checks of the On-Board
Diagnostics (OBD) system on model year 1996 and newer OBD-equipped
motor vehicles be conducted as part of states' motor vehicle I/M
programs. OBD is part of the sophisticated vehicle powertrain
management system and is designed to detect engine and transmission
problems that might cause vehicle emissions to exceed allowable limits.
The OBD system monitors the status of up to 11 emission control
related subsystems by performing either continuous or periodic
functional tests of specific components and vehicle conditions. The
first three testing categories--misfire, fuel trim, and comprehensive
components--are continuous, while the remaining eight only run after a
certain set of conditions has been met. The algorithms for running
these eight periodic monitors are unique to each manufacturer and
involve such things as ambient temperature as well as driving
conditions. Most vehicles will have at least five of the eight
remaining monitors (catalyst, evaporative system, oxygen sensor, heated
oxygen sensor, and exhaust gas recirculation or EGR system) while the
remaining three (air conditioning, secondary air, and heated catalyst)
are not necessarily applicable to all vehicles. When a vehicle is
scanned at an OBD-I/M test site, these monitors can appear as either
``ready'' (meaning the monitor in question has been evaluated), ``not
ready'' (meaning the monitor has not yet been evaluated), or ``not
applicable'' (meaning the vehicle is not equipped with the component
monitor in question).
The OBD system is also designed to fully evaluate the vehicle
emissions control system. If the OBD system detects a problem that may
cause vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times the Federal Test Procedure
standards, then the Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) or Check Engine
Light, is illuminated. By turning on the MIL, the OBD system notifies
the vehicle operator that an emission-related fault has been detected,
and the vehicle should be repaired as soon as possible, thus reducing
the harmful emissions contributed by that vehicle.
The EPA's revised OBD I/M rule applies to only those areas that are
required to implement I/M programs under the CAA, which includes the
aforementioned counties in New Jersey. This rule established a deadline
of January 1, 2002 for states to begin performing OBD checks on 1996
and newer model OBD-equipped vehicles and to require repairs to be
performed on those vehicles with malfunctions identified by the OBD
check.
New Jersey is required to have an enhanced I/M program pursuant to
the CAA, and consequently has adopted, and has been implementing an
enhanced I/M program statewide since December 13, 1999. On January 22,
2002, (67 FR 2811), the EPA fully approved New Jersey's enhanced I/M
program and the State's performance standard modeling as meeting the
applicable requirements of the CAA. Additional information on the EPA's
final approval of New Jersey's enhanced I/M program can be found in the
EPA's January 22, 2002, final approval notice.
III. What was included in New Jersey's SIP submittal?
On September 16, 2016, New Jersey submitted a revision to the State
of New Jersey's I/M program SIP. The submittal consists of new rules
and rule amendments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection's rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-14, 7:27-15, 7:27A-3, 7:27B-4,
7:27B-5 and the Motor Vehicle Commission rules at N.J.A.C. 13:20-7.1
through 7.6, 13:20-
[[Page 46745]]
26.12 and 26.16, 13:20-32.1 through 32.49, 13:20-33.1 through 33.50,
Appendix C, N.J.A.C 13:20-43.1, 43.2 and 43.2A, 43.4 through 43.8,
43.14, 43.16, and N.J.A.C 13:20-44.2, 44.3 and 44.10.
The changes to New Jersey's I/M program include the elimination of
exhaust emission tests or tailpipe testing for all gasoline motor
vehicles. OBD testing will be required for all vehicles, including
heavy duty gasoline vehicles, subject to inspection and required by the
EPA to be equipped with an OBD system. The two-speed idle tests on
model year 1981-1995 light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on pre-
1981 model year light duty gasoline vehicles and idle tests on heavy
duty gasoline vehicles will be discontinued.
The changes to New Jersey's I/M program also include procedures for
diesel exhaust after-treatment checks, standards for fuel leak checks
and replacement of the fuel cap leak test for gasoline-fueled vehicles
with a visual gas cap check to ensure that the gas cap is present. NJ
also submitted amendments to rules related to inspection requirements
and inspection procedures. For heavy-duty diesel powered vehicles, New
Jersey is repealing the rolling acceleration smoke opacity test, and
the power brake smoke opacity test, and retaining only the snap
acceleration smoke opacity test.
Enforcement related amendments include authorizing inspectors of
both gasoline-fueled and diesel-powered motor vehicles to fail a
vehicle if it is determined that there has been tampering with the
vehicle's emission controls. The New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection may also impose penalties for tampering with emission
controls on diesel vehicles. The New Jersey Diesel Emission Inspection
Center inspection forms will be replaced with daily electronic
reporting of diesel inspections, and private inspection facilities will
submit diesel inspection information through an electronic portal or
workstation.
New Jersey provided documentation on the emission impacts that will
result from proposed changes to New Jersey's I/M program, including a
comparison to the EPA I/M performance standard.
IV. What are the I/M performance standard requirements and does New
Jersey's I/M program satisfy them?
As part of its final rule for I/M requirements, the EPA established
a ``model'' program for areas that were required to implement enhanced
I/M programs. This model program is termed by the EPA as the ``I/M
performance standard'' and is defined by a specific set of program
elements. The purpose of the performance standard is to provide a gauge
by which the EPA can evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of each
state's enhanced I/M program. As such, states are required to
demonstrate that their enhanced I/M programs achieve applicable area-
wide emission levels for the pollutants of interest that are equal to,
or lower than, those which would be realized by the implementation of
the model program.
Originally, the EPA only designed one enhanced performance
standard, as specified at 40 CFR 51.351, and required all enhanced I/M
program areas to meet or exceed that standard. However, on September
18, 1995, the EPA promulgated the ``low'' enhanced performance
standard. The low enhanced performance standard is a less stringent
enhanced I/M performance standard established for those areas that have
an approved SIP for Rate of Progress (ROP) for 1996, and do not have a
disapproved plan for ROP for the period after 1996 or a disapproved
plan for attainment of the air quality standards for ozone or carbon
monoxide. New Jersey is currently demonstrating compliance with the CAA
requirements for ROP and attainment and can therefore use the ``low''
enhanced performance standard. The revised performance standard
modeling included as part of New Jersey's submittal is designed to show
attainment of the low enhanced performance standard.
In accordance with the EPA's final rule for I/M requirements (40
CFR part 51, subpart S), a state must design and implement its enhanced
I/M program such that it meets or exceeds a minimum performance
standard. The performance standard is expressed as average grams per
mile (gpm) or tons per day emission levels from area-wide highway
mobile sources as a result of the enhanced I/M program. Areas must meet
the performance standard for the pollutants that cause them to be
subject to the enhanced I/M requirements. New Jersey was required to
implement its enhanced I/M program because of its non-attainment status
for two criteria air pollutants, ozone (of which volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) are
precursors) and carbon monoxide.
The EPA's final rule on I/M requirements also requires that the
equivalency of the emission levels achieved by the state's enhanced I/M
program design compared to those of the performance standard must be
demonstrated using the most current version of the EPA's mobile source
emission model. The model New Jersey utilized in its analysis was
MOVES2014, which was the most current version of the EPA's mobile
source emission model at the time the SIP revisions were submitted.
Table 1 below compares the Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standards
with New Jersey's existing and proposed enhanced I/M programs.
Table 1--Performance Standard and New Jersey's Enhanced Program Designs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low enhanced New Jersey's existing New Jersey's new
Program element performance standard enhanced I/M program enhanced I/M program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Type......................... 100% centralized....... hybrid--70%, hybrid--70%,
centralized/30%, centralized/30%,
decentralized. decentralized.
Program Start Date................... 1983................... 1974................... 1974.
Regulatory Class Coverage for Source 100%, 94%, 88%......... 100%................... 100%, 97.0%, 94.0%.
types: 21, 31 and 32 \1\.
Overall I/M Program Effectiveness for 93.12%, 87.53%, 81.95%. 96%.................... 96.00%, 93.12%, 90.24%.
Source types: 21, 31 and 32 \2\.
Test Frequency....................... Annual................. Biennial............... Biennial.
New Vehicle Exemption................ None................... 5 Years................ 5 Years.
Model Year (MY) Coverage............. 1968 and later MY...... all vehicles not 1996 and later MY
specifically exempt.
[[Page 46746]]
Vehicle Type Coverage................ All light-duty gasoline- All gasoline-fueled All gasoline-fueled
fueled vehicles and vehicles and trucks vehicles and trucks
trucks (up to 8,500 (both light and heavy except non-OBD
lbs. GVWR). duty vehicles). equipped vehicles
greater than 8,500
lbs. GVWR.
Exhaust Emission Test................ Idle--1968-2050 MY..... OBD--1996 and later MY OBD--1996 and later MY.
beginning 6/1/03, Two-
Speed Idle--1981-1995
MY, Idle--pre-1981 and
HDGVs.
Evaporative System Function Checks... N/A.................... Gas Cap Testing--1971-- None.
2000 MY inclusive
(beginning calendar
year 1998).
Waiver Rate.......................... 3%..................... 0%..................... 0%.
Compliance Rate...................... 96%.................... 96%.................... 96%.
Evaluation Date...................... July 2018.............. July 2018.............. July 2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/M programs are designed and implemented to meet or exceed an
applicable minimum federal performance standard. To determine whether a
state's proposed program is projected to meet or exceed the relevant
performance standard specified in 40 CFR 51.351, the state performed
three modeling scenarios: \3\ A no-I/M case, the proposed program, and
the applicable I/M performance standard. More conventionally,
performance standards are expressed as emission reductions, as compared
to a no I/M scenario. The performance standard emission results will
vary for each state due to the use of state-specific inputs such as
registration distribution and fuel types. I/M jurisdictions are allowed
to adopt alternate design features other than the EPA's ``model''
inputs and must show compliance with the applicable performance
standard for the pollutant(s) that established I/M requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source Types included are: 21--passenger vehicles; 31--
passenger trucks; 32--light commercial trucks.
\2\ Overall I/M Program effectiveness is calculated as follows:
Compliance Factor = percent compliance rate x (100-percent waiver
rate) x regulatory class coverage adjustment.
\3\ Information on the three modeling scenarios can be found at
Performance Standard Modeling for New and Existing Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES Mobile
Source Emissions Model, EPA-420-B-14-006, January 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to complete its performance standard and program
evaluation modeling, New Jersey used the parameters and assumptions
shown previously in Table 1, as well as the assumption and values in
Table 2.
Table 2--Modeling Assumptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value used for average summer
Modeling parameters runs (VOC and NOX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Temperature (F)................ 83.4.
Minimum Temperature (F)................ 63.8.
Relative Humidity range (%)............ 50-86.8.
Activity Inputs (VMT, Speed Age New Jersey USEPA EIS MOVES
Distributions, Vehicle Populations, Inputs for 2018.
etc.).
Early NLEV and NJ Low Emission Vehicle Yes.
Program without ZEV Mandate.
Fuel Specifications.................... MOVES Defaults.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 shows the emissions reduction results from modeling the New
Jersey I/M program compared to the EPA low enhanced performance
standard. The emissions reductions achieved under New Jersey's new
proposed I/M program meet or exceed those achieved under the
performance standards.
Table 3--Low Enhanced Performance Standard Modeling Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon
Program type VOC + NOX monoxide
(tons/day) (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USEPA Low Enhanced Performance Standard 160.3 853.1
(2002).................................
New Jersey, No I/M Program (2018)....... 163.7 935.6
New Jersey Proposed I/M Program (2018).. 153.4 829.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey has demonstrated that the changes to their enhanced I/M
program will meet the performance standard requirements and will
therefore continue to achieve emission reductions necessary to attain
and maintain the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. Specifically, New
Jersey's modeling of the proposed I/M program resulted in
[[Page 46747]]
emission reductions of 153.4 tons per day VOC and NOX, and
829.1 tons/day CO which exceeds EPA's performance standards of 160.3
tons/day VOC and NOX and 853.1 tons/day CO.
EPA's Evaluation
The EPA has reviewed New Jersey's changes to its enhanced I/M
program that differ from the previous Federally approved program and
has determined that those changes meet relevant performance standards
and are therefore approvable into the SIP. The EPA will continue to
evaluate New Jersey's enhanced I/M program effectiveness through the
annual and biennial reports submitted by New Jersey in accordance with
40 CFR 51.366, ``Data Analysis and Reporting.''
V. What are New Jersey's I/M program benefits?
For SIP revisions that will or could potentially lead to a change
in emissions or ambient concentrations of a pollutant or its
precursors, the section 110(l) demonstration should address all
pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as
a result of the SIP revision. As indicated in Table 4, the I/M Program
Benefits modeling performed by New Jersey and verified by the EPA shows
an emissions reduction benefit shortfall of 2 tons per day between New
Jersey's existing and new enhanced I/M programs for ozone precursors
(VOCs and NOX), and 11.4 tons per day for carbon monoxide.
Shortfall is a term of art that means there are lower projected
benefits than what is currently in place. New Jersey needs to ``make
up'' for this decrease in projected emission reductions resulting from
the changes being made to the I/M program through the application of
programs not already included in the 8-hour ozone SIP. The decrease in
projected emission reductions from the changes in the I/M program is
calculated by running the MOVES2014 model for both the existing and
proposed new I/M programs for the evaluation year of 2018. New Jersey
addresses the emissions benefit shortfall by using a portion of the
emission benefits from the New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle Program
(NJLEV). The emission benefits from the NJLEV program are quantified by
additional MOVES2014 modeling that include scenarios with and without
NJLEV inputs. The difference in emissions between these MOVES2014
scenarios represents the estimates of the NJLEV emission benefits. The
emission reduction benefits from the NJLEV program are considered
contemporaneous because a new phase of the NJLEV rules began in 2015 to
incorporate more stringent evaporative and emissions standards. New
vehicles sold in New Jersey are meeting these more stringent NJLEV
rules ahead of EPA Tier 3 standards which are equivalent to NJLEV.
Additional control measures and strategies that New Jersey is relying
on to further improve air quality are:
Control of Petroleum Storage Tanks (N.J.A.C 7:27-16.2)
Electric Generating Rule (N.J.A.C 7:27-4.2, 10.2, 19.4)
Portable fuel Containers (N.J.A.C 7:27-24)
Voluntary Retrofits of Ferries (DERA/CMAQ Grants)
Phase 2 HEDD Rule for Electric Generating Units (N.J.A.C 7:27-19.29)
Continuation of the I/M Program for Diesel Vehicles (N.J.A.C 7:27-
14)
A summary of the I/M Program benefits modeling results is found in
Table 4.
Table 4--I/M Program Benefits Modeling Results--Based on 2018 Statewide
Onroad Emission Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission
Emission reductions
Model scenario reductions, carbon
VOC + NOX monoxide
(tons/day) (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. New Jersey Existing I/M Program 154.0 867.2
Without the NJLEV Program..............
B. New Jersey Proposed I/M Program 156.0 878.6
Without the NJLEV Program..............
C. New Jersey Proposed I/M Program with 153.4 829.1
NJLEV Program..........................
D. NJLEV Benefits for 2009 Model Year 0.3 5.1
That Were Claimed in a Previous Ozone
Attainment Demonstration SIP...........
E. SIP Emission Benefits Shortfall (From 2.0 11.4
I/M Program Changes) (B-A).............
F. NJLEV Benefits (B-C)................. 2.6 49.5
G. NJLEV Benefits Not Previously Claimed 2.3 44.4
(F-D)..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Evaluation
Based on the above discussion and the state's 110(l) demonstration,
EPA believes that the changes to the New Jersey's I/M program will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in either
the Northern or Southern New Jersey nonattainment areas and would not
interfere with any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and thus,
are approvable under CAA section 110(l).
VI. What are the EPA's conclusions?
The EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that New
Jersey has revised its I/M program in accordance with the requirements
of the CAA, 40 CFR part 51 and all of the EPA's technical requirements
for an approvable Enhanced I/M program. The EPA is proposing to approve
the rules and rule amendments to the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection's rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-14, 7:27-15, 7:27A-3,
7:27B-4, 7:27B-5 and the Motor Vehicle Commission rules at N.J.A.C.
13:20-7.1 through 7.6, 13:20-26.12 and 26.16, 13:20-32.1 through 32.49,
13:20-33.1 through 33.50, Appendix C, N.J.A.C 13:20-43.1, 43.2 and
43.2A, 43.4 through 43.8, 43.14, 43.16, and N.J.A.C 13:20-44.2, 44.3
and 44.10. The CAA gives states the discretion in program planning to
implement programs of the state's choosing as long as necessary
emission reductions are met.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under
[[Page 46748]]
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 6, 2017.
Catherine R. McCabe,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2017-21521 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
