Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57691 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2011–0686, FRL–9465–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Jersey; 

Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection 

and Maintenance Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on a 

proposed revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection for New 

Jersey’s enhanced inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program. New Jersey 

has made several amendments to its 

I/M program to improve performance of 

the program and has requested that the 

SIP be revised to include these changes. 

Chief among the amendments EPA is 

proposing to approve is New Jersey’s 

amendment to its I/M program to 

establish a new exhaust emission test 

for gasoline fueled vehicles and the 

extension of the new vehicle inspection 

exemption from 4 years to 5 years. EPA 

is proposing approval of this SIP 

revision because it meets all applicable 

requirements of the Clean Air Act and 

EPA’s regulations and because the 

revision will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

national ambient air quality standards 

in the affected area. The intended effect 

of this action is to maintain consistency 

between the State-adopted rules and the 

Federally approved SIP. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

R02–OAR–2011–0686, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901 . 

• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2011– 

0686. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. EPA requests, if 

at all possible, that you contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view 

the hard copy of the docket. You may 

view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenna Salomone, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3741, 

salomone.jenna@epa.gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. Background Information 

What are the Clean Air Act requirements 

for a moderate 8-hr Ozone 

Nonattainment Area? 

History of the ozone standard and Area 

Designations 

Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M 

Programs 

III. What was included in New Jersey’s 

Proposed SIP submittal? 

IV. What are the I/M performance standard 

requirements and does New Jersey’s I/M 

program satisfy them? 

V. Does New Jersey demonstrate 

noninterference with attainment and 

maintenance under section 110(l) of the 

Clean Air Act? 

VI. What are EPA’s conclusions? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve a 

revision, submitted by New Jersey on 

December 15, 2009, and a supplemental 

revision, submitted by New Jersey on 

October 12, 2010, to the New Jersey 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

pertaining to New Jersey’s motor vehicle 

enhanced inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) program. New Jersey provided 

EPA with documentation on the 

emission impacts that will result from 

proposed changes to New Jersey’s 

enhanced I/M program including a 

comparison to the EPA I/M performance 

standard. The revisions submitted by 

New Jersey include a new exhaust 

emission test for gasoline fueled 

vehicles; the extension of the new 

vehicle inspection exemption from 4 

years to 5 years; the elimination of 

repair cost waivers; the increase in the 

inspection frequency (to annual) for 

certain classes of commercial vehicles 

such as limousines, taxis and jitneys; 

and the subjecting of light duty diesel 

vehicles to emissions testing. 

II. Background Information 

What are the Clean Air Act 

requirements for a moderate 8-hr ozone 

nonattainment area? 

History of the Ozone Standard and Area 

Designations 

In 1997, EPA revised the health-based 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) averaged over 

WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

57692 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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. 

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 

WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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

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 .......................... hybrid—70% centralized/30% decentralized.hybrid—70% centralized/30% decentralized. 

Credit Assumed for Decentralized 

Program.

NA ................................................. 80% ............................................... 96% .1

Program Start Date ........................ 1983 2 ............................................ 1974 .............................................. 1974. 

Test Frequency .............................. Annual ........................................... Biennial ......................................... Biennial. 

New Vehicle Exemption ................. None ............................................. 4 Years ......................................... 5 Years. 

WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

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.

Two-Speed Idle Standards of 

1.2% for carbon monoxide and 

220ppm for HC. 

Model Year (MY) Coverage ........... 1968 and later MY ........................ All vehicles not specifically exempt.All vehicles not specifically exempt. 

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).

All gasoline-fueled vehicles and 

trucks (both light and heavy 

duty vehicles). 

Exhaust Emission Test .................. Idle—1968–2050 MY .................... 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 .........

OBD—1996 and later MY beginning 6/1/03. 

Two-Speed Idle—1981–1995 MY. 

Idle—pre-1981 and HDGVs. 

Visual Inspections .......................... Positive Crankcase Ventilation 

(PCV) valve—1968–1971 MY 

inclusive 

Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) 

valve—1972 and newer 

Visual inspection of the catalytic 

converter, presence of a gas 

cap, and fuel inlet restrictor— 

1975 and newer (beginning calendar 1985).

Visual inspection of the catalytic 

converter, presence of a gas 

cap, and fuel inlet restrictor— 

1975 and newer (beginning calendar 1985). 

Evaporative System Function 

Checks.

N/A ................................................ Gas Cap Testing—1971 and later 

vehicles 3 (beginning calendar 

year 1998).

Gas Cap Testing—1971–2000 

MY inclusive 3 (beginning calendar 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 vehicle population or 20,000 vehicles 

(whichever is less).

0.5% of the subject vehicle population or 20,000 vehicles 

(whichever is less).

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. 2For programs with existing I/M programs, like New Jersey’s basic I/M program. 

3Only 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. 4The 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. 5For 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

Modeling parameters 

Value used for average 

summer runs 

(VOC and NOX) 

Value used for average 

winter runs 

(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 Certification .............................................................................. yes—100% ......................... yes—100%. 

WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57695 

TABLE 2—LOW ENHANCED PERFORMANCE STANDARD MODELING ASSUMPTIONS—Continued 

Modeling parameters 

Value used for average 

summer runs 

(VOC and NOX) 

Value used for average 

winter runs 

(carbon monoxide) 

NJ Low Emission Vehicle Program w/o ZEV Mandate ................................................. Yes ..................................... Yes. 

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

Program type VOC 

(gpm) 

NOX

(gpm) 

Carbon 

monoxide (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 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 

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); 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: 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: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901. 

• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters 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 http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS