+(,121/,1(

Citation: 48 Fed. Reg. 51472 1983 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Thu Aug 25 12:53:01 2016

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
51472 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 9,

Statement of Facts

Those facts necessary to a disposition

of the assigned errors are set forth in the

argument, infra. 2

Errors and Argument

I

Specification I of charge I fails to

state an offense under the Uniform Code

of Military Justice.

The allegation of absence in

Specification I of the Charge I fails to.

indicate that the absence was "without

proper authority." The United States

Court of Military Appeals has held that

such an omission is fatal to the legal

sufficiency of the specification. United

States v. Schultz, 16 U.S.C.M.A. 488, 37

C.M.R. 108 (1967); United States v. Fout,

3 U.S.C.M.A. 565, 12 C.M.R. 121 (1953).

H

The military judge failed to tailor his

instructions on sentence to the matters

presented in mitigation and extenuation.

There was extensive evidence

presented on behalf of accused to

establish his proper exemplary conduct

in civilian and military life (R. 108-133).

The mi-Aary judge limited his

instructions on sentence to the

maximum authorized punishment and

the voting procedure.

In United States v. Wheeler, 17

U.S.C.M.A. 274, 38 C.M.R. 72 (1967), the

failure of the military judge to tailor the

instructions on sentence to the evidence

presented in mitigation and extenuation

was held to require a rehearing on

sentence.

Wherefore, the sentence should be set

aside and a rehearing authorized

thereon.

Sentence Appropriateness

Accused is an 18-year-old first time

offender (Post-trial Review, p. 3) and has

sincerely urged his restoration to duty

(R. 100). His immediate superiors have

expressed their willingness to have

accused return to his organization (R.

110).

Wherefore, only so much of the

sentence as provides for forfeiture of

$50.00 pay per month for 6 months,

confinement at hard labor for 6 months,

and reduction to the lowest enlisted

grade should be approved by this

Honorable Court.

Where a statement of facts generally applies to

all of the assigned errors, it may be set forth here.

Date

John C. Smith, Esq.,

I Act Street, Union, New Jersey.

Albert Jones,

Captain, JA CC, Appellate Defense Counsel

Harry Arnold,

Colonel, JAGC, Appellate Defense Counsel

Certificate of Service

I certify that a copy of the foregoing

was mailed or delivered to appellate

Government counsel on the - day of

19.

Name

Address

Dated: November 3, 1983.

M. S. Healy,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,

Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 83-30285 Filed 11-8-83; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-01-M

PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

35 CFR Part 133

Tolls for Use of Canal

CFR Correction

In the July 1, 1983 revision of Title 35

of the Code of Federal Regulations, in

§ 133.1(a), the toll rate appears

incorrectly. In § 133.1(a), appearing on

page 146, the toll rate in the fourth line

of the paragraph which reads "$.83"

should read "$1.83".

BILLING CODE 1505-01-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region II Docket No. 16; A-2-FRL 2467-4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; New Jersey

1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

Attainment Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This notice announces final

approval by the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) of a revision to

the New Jersey State Implementation

Plan (SIP). As required by Part D of the

Clean Air Act, this SIP revision was

developed to provide for the attainment

by December 31, 1987 of the-national

ambient air quality standards for ozone

and carbon monoxide in the State of

New Jersey. Based on its review of the

State's submittals and comments

received on earlier EPA notices of

proposed rulemaking (48 FR 5144,

February 3, 1983 and 48 FR 36139,

August 9, 1983), EPA has found that the

New Jersey SIP revision meets

applicable requirements on the Clean

Air Act and EPA regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action becomes

effective on November 9, 1983 with the

exception of a proposed New Jersey rule

to authorize currently licensed

automobile reinspection stations to

conduct initial inspections. EPA

approval of this rule will become

effective upon its execution by a duly

authorized New Jersey official, provided

that such execution occurs by December

9, 1983.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's

submittals, public comments received on

EPA's proposals, and an EPA Technical

Support Document to this action are

available for inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II, Air Programs Branch, Jacob

K. Javits Federal Building, 26 Federal

Plaza, Rm. 1005, New York, New York

10278;

Environmental Protection Agency,

Public Information Reference Unit,

EPA Library, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20460;

New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection, Labor and

Industry Building, John Fitch Plaza,

Trenton, New Jersey 08625.

A copy of the State's Submittals is also

available for inspection at the following

address:

Office of the Federal Register, 1100 L

Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20480.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William S. Baker, Chief, Air Programs

Branch, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region II

or

Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, 26

Fede'ral Plaza, Rm. 1005, New York,

New York 10278, (212) 264-2517.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In response to provisions of the 1977

Amendments to the Clean Air Act, on

December 29, 1978 the State of New

Jersey submitted to the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) a revision to

its State Implementation Plan (SIP). This

revision presented a program to

continue the State's efforts toward

attainment of the ozone and carbon

monoxide air quality standards. EPA

approved this revision on March 11, 1980

(45 FR 15531); however, because the

State requested and received an

extension to December 31, 1987 for

1983 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 9, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 51473

attainment of the standards, the State

was required to submit another SIP

revision by July 1, 1982.

On October 8, 1982, the New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

(NJDEP) submitted a draft of the

required SIP revision. Public hearings

were held by the State on its draft SIP

revision on October 14, 19, and 20, 1982

and the document was supplemented

with additional information on

November 23, 1982. Based on EPA's

review of these two submittals, on

February 3,1983 (48 FR 5144) EPA

proposed approval of the draft SIP

revision. (The reader is referred to this

February 3, 1983 notice and to Section III

of today'snotice for an overall

description of New Jersey's ozone and

carbon monoxide control program.) This

proposed approval noted that EPA's

final action would be dependent on its

analysis of comments received during

the EPA public comment period and on

the content of the final SIP ultimately

adopted by the State. EPA also

identified in its-February 3, 1983 notice

three elements of the draft SIP revision

which needed additional development

before EPA could take final approval

action.

On January 18, 1983, the Governor

submitted a final SIP revision, which

was supplemented withadditional

information from NJDEP on February 14,

1983. The informational needs identified

by EPA in its February 3, 1983 proposal

were submitted by NJDEP on July 11 and

28, 1983. On August 8 and 9, 1983 New

Jersey held public hearings concerning

the motor vehicle emissions inspection

and maintenance (I/M) program

contained in its July 11,1983 submittal.

On August 9, 1983 (48 FR 36139) EPA

proposed to approve the State's July 11

and July 28, 1983 submittals as meeting

the needs EPA identified in its February 3. 1983 proposal. (The reader is also

referred to this August 9, 1983 notice for

a complete discussion of how these

informational needs were met.) As

specifically requested by EPA in its

August 9,1983 proposal, on September

26, 1983 NJDEP submitted procedures for

the operation of the private inspection

stations. A summary of these procedures

and other supplemental information that

was submitted and the results of EPA's

review of this material are contained in

th next section of today's notice.

11. September 26, 1983 Supplemental

Information

A. Introduction. On September 26,

1983, the State submitted explanatory material and documents supplementing

is earlier submissions. This latest

submittal containsa revised main SIP

document, dated August 1983, and new

and revised Appendices and

Attachments related to:

e Operating procedures.for private

inspection stations,

" Mechanic certification,

" Specifications for exhaust gas

analyzers,

* Emission'test standards for motor

vehicles,

" Ozone modeling,

° The volatile organic compound

(VOC) emission inventory,

" Conformity Criteria, and

" Public hearings.

The submittal .also provided

information related to:

* The State's new car inspection

exemption,

.* The inspection extension for

motorists, experiencing long waits at

inspection stations,

- Requirements for the calibration of

exhaust gas analyzers, and

9 Stationary source test procedures.

The contents of the September 26, 1983

submittal are discussed in detail in the

following subsections of today's notice.

B. Operating Procedures for Private

Inspection Stations. The State's

submittal contains.-a proposed

emergency rule (Appendix 12,

Attachment 14-A) to authorize currently

licensed reinspection stations to conduct

initial inspections.'The State has

committed to adopt this emergency rule

within one week of todayand to adopt

the rule in substantially unchanged form

in its final rulemaking.

Newlersey is already operating an I/

M program that meets all of EPA's I/M

requirements. Under that program,

vehicles are inspected initially in Stateoperated inspection stations. Vehicles

that must undergo repair may be

reinspected in licensed private

inspection stations. The proposed

emergency rule would add to the

existing program provisions authorizing

private inspection stations to conduct

initial inspections as well as

reinspections. The proposed rule also

specifies procedures for initial

inspections at private stations.

EPA has reviewed the proposed

emergency rule and finds that the

procedures for initial inspections at

private stations are approvable. They

are substantially the same as the

existing procedures for reinspections at

private inspection stations. Therefore,

EPA is approving the new emergency

rule for initial inspections at private

stations. However, since the rule

establishing this program is still in draft

form, EPA is making its approval of

initial inspections being conducted at

the private stations contingent upon the

final adoption of the emergency rule. -

EPA's approval will take effect only

when a duly authorized New Jersey

official executes the rule so as to bind

the State. Moreover, this contingent

approval will expire within 30 days of

today's date if the State does not adopt

the rule. Expiration of the contingent

approval of the emergency rule will not

affect the approval of the current I/M

program based on initial inspections at

State stations. That program will

continue to be approved even without

EPA approval of inspections at private

stations.

The State has committed to

permanently adopt a rule which

authorizes private stations to conduct

initial inspections and which specifies

procedures for initial inspections, in

substantially unchanged form from the

emergency rule. However, the State

must obtain EPA approval as a SIP

revision of this permanently adopted

rule. After submittal of the permanently

adopted rule by the State, EPA intends

to take timely action so as to minimize

the period of lime, if any, between

expiration of the emergency rule and

EPA action on the permanently adopted

rule.

Finally, it is useful to note that the

improvements that the State has

committed to'in order.to increase the

effectiveness of its I/M-program (e.g.,

anti-tampering checks, a reduction in the

period of the current new car exemption,

inclusion of commercial vehicles into

the.I/M program) will be implemented

under either inspection system. This fact

is discussed in greater detail in Section

IV.B.4 of today's notice.

C. Mechanic Certification. The State's

submittal contains an emergency rule

(Appendix 12, Attachment 14-B) which

requires the certification of mechanics

at reinspection stations. The rule

became effective on September 2, 1983

and expires on November 1, 1983. In its

submittal, the State notes that it will

permanently adopt the rule, consistent

with due consideration -of public

comments, in substantially unchanged

form and will be submitted to EPA for

approval. The emergency rule is

consistent with the SIP's comnitment

(Appendix 12) to adopt standards for

mechanic -certification.

D. Specifications for Exhaust Gas

Analyzers. 'The State's submittal

contains another emergency rule

(Appendix 12, Attachment 7) which

specifies standards for the exhaust gas

analyzers to be used-at private

inspection stations. The rule, which also

became effective on September 2, 1983,

exuires on November 1, 1983 and will be

permanently adopted consistent with

due consideration of public comments,
51474 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 9, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

in substantially unchanged form and

will be submitted to EPA for approval.

The emergency rule is consistent with

the SIP's commitment (Appendix 12) to

prepare specifications for exhaust gas

analyzers.

E. Emission Test Standards. The

State's submittal contains a proposed

draft revision to Subchapter 15, "Control

and Prohibition of Air Pollution from

Gasoline-Fueled Motor Vehicles"

(Appendix 12, Attachment 3): This

revision provides:

* Revised emission standards for

light-duty vehicles for implementation,

* Emission standards and test

procedures for heavy-duty gasolinefueled vehicles, and

- Prohibitions against tampering with

emissions control equipment by

individuals.

The SIP contains a commitment

(Appendix 12) to revise Subchapter 15

for adoption of all of these measures by

July 1, 1984. The proposed draft revision

is consistent with this commitment. EPA

will take a separate rulemaking action

on this proposed SIP revision after EPA

completes its detailed review.

F. Ozone Modeling. The State's

submittal contains supplemental ozone

modeling for the New Jersey-New YorkConnecticut Air Quality Control Region

(NJ-NY-CT AQCR) (Appendix 3,

Attachment 13). As noted in EPA's

August 9, 1983 proposal, this modeling

demonstrates that a 59 percent

reduction in VOC emissions in the NJNY-CT AQCR is needed for attainment

of the ozone standard. EPA finds this

determination to be acceptable.

G. VOC-Emission Inventory. The

State's submittal contains revisions to

the SIP's inventory of VOC emissions in

the NJ-NY-CT AQCR (Appendix 1,

Attachment 1). The revisions relate to

changes in the baseline inventory and

the effect of implementatioon of the

SIP's extra-ordinary measures. These

changes were previously submitted to

EPA on July 28, 1983 and were discussed

in EPA's August 9, 1983 proposal, where

EPA found them adequate. Thus, EPA is

approving the revised inventory.

H. Conformity Criteria. The State's

submittal contains criteria and

procedures for evaluating the conformity

of transportation plans, programs and

projects with the SIP (Appendix 49). In

its August 9, 1983 proposal, EPA

reviewed these criteria and procedures

before they were adopted by the North

Jersey Transportation Coordinating

Committee (NJTCC). EPA found that

they would be adequate provided that

they were adopted in a substantially

unchanged form by the NJTCC. The

NJTCC adopted the proposed criteria

and procedures without substantial

changes on August 2, 1983 and thus EPA

approves them.

I. Public Hearing. The State's

submittal contains a summary of the

comments it received at the State's

public hearings of August 8 and 9, 1983

(Appendix 50). The hearing concerned

changes to the motor vehicle control

measures contained in the SIP.

At the hearings, one of the

commentors expressed concern about

the proposed schedule extending until

January 1, 1988 for the implementation

of the SIP's I/M related extraordinary

measures. In response, the State has

revised its SIP to advance the

implementation date for these measures

from January 1, 1988 to May 1, 1987. As

discussed in Subsection IV.B.4 of

today's notice, EPA finds that the

revised schedule makes it possible to

provide for attainment of the ozone

standards within the statutory time

frame established by the Clean Air Act

(i.e., attainment by December 31, 1987).

EPA thus approves the revised schedule.

J. Other Issues. The State's submittal

contains information which clarifies

commitments made in its proposed SIP.

It is now made clear that:

e The State is committed to reducing

the current new car exemption from two

years to one year even if the private

inspection system is not extended

beyond its one-year trial period.

* The State is committed to

conducting monthly gas calibration

checks of exhaust gas analyzers at the

private inspection stations.

* The test procedures for Group II

Control Techniques Guideline source

categories are contained in "Air Test

Method III," which is currently being

used by the State to determine

compliance with State regulations. EPA

found these procedures adequate in its

February 3, 1983 proposal.

Finally, the submittal describes the

State's policy for issuing 45-day

inspection extensions to motorists

experiencing long waits-at State

inspection stations. This policy is

discussed in Subsection IV.B.4 of

today's notice.

III. Summary of the New Jersey State

Implementation Plan for Ozone and

Carbon Monoxide.

A. The Ozone Control Program. The

entire State of New Jersey is classified

under Section 107(d) of the Clean Air

Act as not attaining the national

ambient air quality standard for ozone.

The SIP identifies the VOC emission

reductions from 1980 levels which are

necessary to attain the ozone standard

by December 31, 1987 in each of the

New Jersey's four AQCRs. The

necessary reductions are presented in

Table 1.

TABLE 1.-VOC EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN

NEW JERSEY NECESSARY FOR ATrAINMENT

OF THE OZONE STANDARD

Percent AOCR reduction

NJ-NY-CT AOCR ............................................................. 59

Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate AOCR .................. 44

New Jersey Intrastate AOCR .............................. : .......... 29

Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper Delaware Valley Interstate AGCR .......................................... : .................... 28

The SIP demonstrates attainment of

the ozone standard through the

development and implementation of

"reasonably available" and

"extraordinary" control measures.

These measures will reduce VOC

emissions from both stationary and

mobile sources. Using the NJ-NY-CT

AQCR as an illustration, Table 2

identifies the measures that the State

commits to implement.

The SIP demonstrates that these

control measures, which will be

implemented throughout New Jersey,

will provide for the required emission

reductions in the other three AQCRs.

TABLE 2.-EMISSION CONTROL PROGRAM NJNT-CT AOCR EFFECTIVENESS OF MEASURES, 1987

[1980 Emissions-- .058 metric tons/day]

Per- Emnis- cent

sion reducreduc- tion Applicable State

Control program tion from regulation (metric 1980 1NJAC)' tons/ emisday) son levels

Existing Control Measures.

New Reasonably

Available Control

Measures

e Industrial Control

* Stage II Vapor

Recovery.

• Revised Offset

Program.

" I/M Program

Modifications'.

* Transportation

Controls,

Subtotal .....................

New Extraordinary

Control Measures

0 Lower Exclusion

Rates for Industrial

Processes and

Industrial Surface

Coating.

* I/M Program

modifications'.

9 Non-industrial

Surface Coating.

* Barge and Tanker

Loading.

" Waste Disposal'

* Consumer Solvent

Use.

' 432 40.8

1.8

1.7

0.4

2.0

0.5

6.4

19

18

4

'21

5

67

so

9'b

31

10

15 1.4

7:27-16 & 17

7:27-16

7:27-16

7:27-15 and

13:20-32 & 33

4.7 17:27-16

0.9 17:27-14 & 15 and 13:20-32

& 33 3.0 (-1

0.9 7:27-16

7:26 and 7:27-17

(")
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 218 / Wednesday, 'November 9, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 51475

TABLE 2.-EMISSION CONTROL PROGRAM NJNT-CT AQCR EFFECTIVENESS OF MEASURES, 1987-Continued

[ t980 Emissions-1.058 metric tons/day)

Per- Emis- cent

sion radurreduc- tion Applicable State

Control program tion from tegulation (metric 1980 (NJAC) tons/ ea- day) sion

levels

Subtotal .................... 125 11.8

Total Reduction.- 624' 59.0

Emission Reduction 624

Target for Attainment

: New Jersey Administrative Code.

Reflects EPA recalculation of effectiveness of I/M program. t1M program modifications include: revised emission

standards. heavy duty gasoline vehicle inspection, tampering inspection, and reduction of new car inspection exemption. d t/M program modifications include: diesel i/M and

revised te'ting procedures. ' To be determined in the future. I Waste idisposal includes: huzardous waste irerators. and landfill controls.

Subchapter*_6, "Control and

Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile

Organic Compounds", (N.J.A.C. 7:26-16)

as revised on December 31,71981 and

made effective March 1, 1282 is being

incorporated into the SIP by today's

action. The adequacy of this regulation

was discussed in EPAs February 3, 1983

proposal and EPA did not receive any

comments concerning it.

In revising Subdhapter 16, New Jersey

deleted the final compliance dates

applicable to sources included in EPA's

Group II Control Technology Guideline

(CTG) category. This was done because

the dates for these sources to be in

compliance had passed and all sources

were expected to be in compliance.

However, EPA requires the specification

of an enforceable final compliance date

should it be required to take federal

enforcement action. Therefore, EPA

intends to use the final compliance

dates which were originally contained in

Subchapter 16 if federal enforcement

action is necessary.

Subchapter 17, "Control and

Prohibition of Air Pollution by Toxic

Substances," as revised on October 17,

1979 and made effective on December

17, 1979 is being incorporated into the

SIP by today's action. This is being done

for the purpose of controlling the

emissions of perchlorethylene (perc)

from dry cleaners. The state-of-the-art

requirements far perc dry cleaners, as

required by Subchapter 17, is clarified in

a NJDEP memorandum, "Subchapter 17

Requirements for Perchloroethylene Dry

Cleaning Systems", dated October 25,

1982, which is also being incorporated

into the SIP. The adequacy of this

regulation and memorandum were

discussed in EPA's February 3, 1983

proposal; EPA did not receive any

comments on this control measure.

B. The Carbon Monoxide Control

Program. Fourteen central business

districts located throughout New Jersey

have been desigrm'ted as nonattainment

for carbon monox id_ Also, seventy-five

communities in'the State have been

designated under Section 107(d) &fthe

Clean Air Act as being unclassifiable for

carbon moroxide.

The SIP demonstrates that all of the

State's designatedand predicted 'hot

spot&' will-come into attainment prior to

December31, "1987 This will be

accomplished by the 'State through its

new I/M -program and the

implementation ,f.transportation control

measures at the hot.spots. The State's

attainment demonstration also relies

upon continuation of the Federal Nlotor

Vehicle ControlProgram, which ensures

that new vehicles meet stringent

emission standards. The State further

commits to locate airquality monifors at

several of the hot spots predicted to be

experiencing .high concentrations of

carbon monoxide (as determined

through rnndeling).This is necessary to

define more precisely the attainment

status of these hot.spots and to further

refine .the State's ability to predict

carbon monoxide concentrations using

modeling procedures.

IV. Discussion of Comments

During the public comment period

established by EPA's February 3, 1983

proposal and ending on March .21, 1983.

EPA received comments from seven

commentors which addresed 20

principal issues. During the public

comment period established by EPA's

August 9, 1983 proposal and ending on

September., 1983, EPA received

comments from 12 commentors which

addressed 19 principal issues. These

comments are summarized and

discussed in this section of today's

notice. They are also treated in greater

detail ina document prepared by EPA

entitled, "Technical Support Document:

Response to Comments on 1982 Revision

to the New Jersey State Implementation

Plan, September 1983." This document is

available at the locations identified in

the ADDRESSES section of today's

notice.

A. Comments on EPA 's February 3, 1983

Proposal

1. Ozone Modeling

Comment: One commentor questioned

why EPA accepts the results of ozone

modeling which employed the Dodge

chemical mechanism, since EPA

employs a Chemical Bond-III mechanism

(CB-I) in its Northeast Corridor

Regional Modeling Project study work.

The commentorbelieves that, if the CBIII mechanism had been used by the

State and if all other modeling factors

remained equal, the required control of

VOCs,would have been-educed by 10.8

percent in the New Jersey portion of the

Metropolitan Philadelphia AQ CR.

Response: A review of the modeling

analysis for the Metropolitan

Philadelphia AQ CR as contained "in the

SIP indicates that it was'performed

using a chemical mechanism -approved

in the EPA guidelines. These guidelines

for modeling are contained in an EPA

document entitled, "'Guidelines for Use

of City-specific EKMA (Empirical

Kinetic Modeling Approach] in

Preparing Ozone SIPs," EPA-450/4--80-

077. Furthermore, EPA analysis has

demonstrated, assuming that-the

Tecommended concentration of nonmethane organic compounds aloft is

incorporated into the model on the SIP

control-day, that the required degree of

control of VOCs for attainment of the

ozone standard is Virtually indenfical

regardless or whether the Dodge

chemical mechanism or CB-Ill is used.

Comment: EPA Region I'I and EPA's

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards appear to-have inconsistent

positions on the use of the CB-Ill

mechanism.

Response: The positions ,of these two

EPA offices are not inconsistent. The

Dodge chemical mechanism is

recognized by both as a technically

acceptable technique for estimating

xequired VOC reductions. As previously

discussed, the EBM-II mechanism is an

alternative assumption which can also

be used, provided that certain test

requirements are met.

Comment: The ozone modeling

conducted for the SIP does not recognize

the possible design bias introduced by

using meteorological data from the year

1980.

Response: In its ozone modeling

analysis, New Jersey used date from the

period'1979 through'1981. This was in

response to an EPA recommendation

that three years of ozone data be used in

conducting an ozone modeling analysis.

This recommended approach tends to

mitigate the effect that ozone

concentrations from any one year might

have on the modeling results.

It appears to EPA that a principal

concern of the commentor relates to the

higher-than-average number of days in

1980 when the ambient temperature

exceeded 90 degrees. While it is true

that ozone formation is related to a

threshold temperature value, the

magnitude and frequency of ozone

episodes are more directly related to
51476 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 9, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

overall synoptic weather patterns than

to temperature. In fact, 60 percent of the

violations of the ozone standard

recorded in New Jersey during the 1979

through 1981 period occurred on days

when the maximum temperature was

below 90 degrees.

Comment: EPA has not reviewed

information contained in a report by

Weston Inc. done for the Texas Air

Control Board which shows that the

EKMA model, which was used by New

Jersey, overpredicts VOC control

requirements. Furthermore, it is claimed

that EPA Region II has not reviewed 'a

number of citations in the Weston report

which relate to the uses and validation

of EKMA.

Response: EPA has reviewed all

material directly submitted to it during

the public comment period. However, -

EPA's determination in this regard must

be based on the fact that the use of

EKMA by New Jersey in developing its

SIP revision was fully consistent with

EPA guidelines. As stated earlier in this

notice, New Jersey used an EPAapproved modeling approach.

Furthermore, in recent studies, EPA

research indicates that EKMA modeling

results have compared favorably with

actual ozone levels.

Comment: The four AQCRs in New

Jersey should be viewed as discrete

airsheds. The State's concept of equity

among AQCRs for the control of VOC

emissions is not sound and leads to

overregulation.

Response: A state has the right to

apply any air pollution control approach

that it believes necessary, provided that

the approach meets the requirements of

the Clean Air Act. New Jersey has met

these requirements. Therefore, EPA has

no basis on which to question New

Jersey's policy.

2. Stationary Source Control Measures

Comment: There are several major

VOC sources identified in the SIP that

are not currently regulated through

application of reasonably available

control technology (RACT). The SIP

does not demonstrate that RACT is

otherwise being met at these sources nor

does it commit to future regulation.

Response: There are 198 major

sources of VOCs in New Jersey, 16 of

which are not currently regulated. Nine

of these sources are electric generating

stations; the remaining seven are

sources to which the State's generic

VOC control regulation (Subchapter 16)

is not applicable.

Electric power stations currently

employ technology which minimizes

VOC emissions through boiler designs

which optimize efficiency, Therefore, no

additional controls are considered

reasonable for these sources. For the

remaining seven sources, EPA has not

published information identifying what

degree of control is presumed to

represent RACT. Therefore, it will be

necessary for the State to determine

RACT on an individual source-bysource basis. The State has committed

in its SIP to regulate these sources and

has identified its implementation

schedule. EPA guidelines allow for the

acceptance of such schedules.

Comment: The State makes a less

than unequivocal commitment to the

application of RACT to minor sources.

Response: In its SIP, New Jersey has

committed to adopt regulations to

control the emission of VOCs from

currently unregulated minor sources and

has identified a detailed implementation

schedule for this effort. Moreover, in

New Jersey the majority of minor

sources currently are being controlled

through enforcement of Subchapter 16.

Comment: The State has not

conducted a complete analysis of all

sources with VOC emissions above 100

tons per year so as to identify the

specific emission reductions that are

credited to them in the SIP.

Response: In Appendix 1, Attachment

E to its SIP, New Jersey has included

tables which identify the principal

emitting operations at a sampling of

major facilities. With this information

and the knowledge of what emission

reductions are reasonable from the

application of existing control

techniques, the State has estimated the

emission reductions it expects to

achieve once these sources are fully

controlled. While the State has not

identified the specific emission

reduction expected to be obtained from

each individual facility, the technique

employed by the State is sufficiently

accurate so as to be acceptable to EPA.

3. Extraordinary Measures

Comment: The State makes a less

than unequivocal commitment to

implement its extraordinary control

measures.

Response: In order to demonstrate

attainment of the ozone standard by

December 31, 1987, the State commits in

its SIP to the future implementation of

extraordinary measures. While, as the

commentor points out, the State did not

originally identify the specific

extraordinary measures it intended to

implement, it did so in supplemental

information submitted to EPA on July 11;

1983. This submittal is discussed in

detail in EPA's August 9, 1983

supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking, where it was found

acceptable.

Comment: New Jersey failed to

consult adequately with New York on

the development of its extraordinary

control measures. The commentor

believes that the development of such

measures requires interstate

consultation in order for the measures to

be effective.

Response: EPA supports the concept

of regional cooperation and unified

effort in developing control measures.

However, the extraordinary control

measures chosen by the State are not

dependent on other states adopting the

same measures. EPA has found that

New Jersey fulfilled the Clean Air Act's

consultation requirements in developing

its SIP revision.

4. Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance

Comment: EPA should withhold

approval of the SIP until the State's

commitments to its I/M program are

fully described and legally adopted.

Response: In its February 3, 1983

proposal, EPA stated that it would not

grant final approval to the New Jersey

SIP revision until the type of I/M

program ultimately selected by the State

was fully described. The State's July 11,

1983 submittal presents this information,

which has been described by EPA in its

August 9, 1983 supplemental proposal.

Additional submittals concerning the

State's I/M program were provided by

New Jersey on September 26, 1983.

These are described in Section II of

today's notice. As noted in its

September 26, 1983 submittal, the State

commits to adopt an emergency rule

establishing .operating procedures for

private inspection stations within one

week of publication of this notice.

Comment: The State (at the time of the

publication of EPA's February 3, 1983

proposal) has decreased the frequency

of its motor vehicle inspections from

once per year to once every other year

The commentor believes that this is a

violation of the I/M program

commitment contained in the 1979 New

Jersey SIP and that EPA should impose

the sanctions provided for by the Clean

Air Act. The commentor further believes

that the State's commitment to a new

I/M program is weak because the State

does not appear to be fully committed to

adopt all aspects of the program.

Response: As of July 1, 1983, the State

returned to an annual inspection

schedule and is meeting the

commitments made in its 1979 SIP.

Furthermore, the I/M program

committed to by the State as a part of its

current SIP revision goes beyond the

1979 program in both scope and

effectiveness. The State's commitment
No. 218 / Wednesday, November 9, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 51477

to implement this new I/M program is

detailed in Section II.A-E of this notice.

Comment: The State, in the joint

NJDEP- New Jersey Division of Motor

Vehicles (NJDMV) Task Force program,

has not demonstrated how it addresses

the specific measures required to

determine the effectiveness of an I/M

program (as described in an EPA

January 22, 1981 guideline document).

Response: In a detailed discussion in

its July 11, 1983 submittal the State

adequately addressed each of the ten

measures of effectiveness contained in

the EPA guidelines.

Comment: On October 14, 19 and 20,

1982, when hearings were conducted by

the State on its draft SIP, the new I/M

program was not detailed in the

document made available to the public.

Response: In its October 8, 1982 draft

SIP revision, which was subject to

public hearing, the State presented the

ten options which it was considering at.

the time for the future of its I/M

program. The I/M program ultimately

selected by the State and described in

its July 11, 1983 submittal to EPA was

from among these ten options. This

program was the subject of two New

Jersey public hearings (held on August 8

and 9, 1983) and of EPA's August 9, 1983

supplemental proposal. Therefore, there

has been an adequate opportunity for

public comment on the new New Jersey

I/M program.

5. General Comments

Comment: The SIP does not contain

enforceable measures which will assure

attianment of air quality standards by

1987. Some of the measures contained in

the SIP were not enforceable or were

not adopted at the time of SIP submittal.

Furthermore, the 1984 mid-course

correction procedure described in the

SIP is contrary to the directives of the

Clean Air Act.

Response: As discussed in its

February 3, 1983 proposal, EPA intends

to be appropriately flexible in reviewing

SIP submittals.

In some cases, if a state submits

sufficient enforceable measures to

provide for reasonable further progress

during the first few years of the

extended attainment period, EPA will

accept schedules for the submittal of the

other measures needed to provide

additional emission reductions in the

remaining years. These schedules,

however, must represent genuine

commitments to develop, describe in

detail, and adopt needed control

measures and must include specific

dates by which the measures will be

submitted to EPA. EPA believes that the.

New Jersey SIP revision meets this test.

EPA cannot accept a state

commitment to submit a future SIP

revision in lieu of meeting the

requirements of the Act. -However, a

state is entitled to request a revision to

its SIP at any time that it finds that it is

necessary. In its reference to a

midcourse correction, New Jersey

simply indicates that it intends to do

additional analysis of its progress

toward attainment in 1984 based upon

any new information that becomes

available. EPA does not believe that this

diminishes the quality of New Jersey's

SIP commitments.

Comment: The SIP does not provide

for reasonable further progress towards

the attainment of the ozone standard

because it does not provide for

substantial emission reductions in the

first few years after the SIP becomes

effective. This is compounded by the

fact that the State is requiring motor

vehicle emission tests only every other

year instead of on the annual testing

cycle assumed in the SIP.

Response: The SIP provides for

adequate emission reductions of VOCs

every year throughout the period from

1980 to 1987. In addition, since the State

now requires motor vehicle emission

tests every year, there is no reason to

question the emission reductions

attributed to its I/M program.

6.National Policy Issues

Comment: The EPA sanctions policy

is deficient in failing to take into

account the fact that ozone in the major

metropolitan areas of the eastern United

States is a problem of regional scope

involving significant interstate

dimension. This is contrary to provisions

of the Clean Air Act.

Response: There are two general

cases which occur with regard to the

interstate transport of photochemical

(e.g., ozone) pollution:

* The case of a major metropolitan

area whose ambient ozone

concentrations and resulting control

estimates are inflgenced by transport,

but not dominated by it; and

* The case of a smaller metropolitan

area in which transport is the

overwhelming cause of high observed

ozone concentrations.

It is clear from reviewing available

surface and aircraft data collected in the

northeast by an EPA contractor that

major metropolitan areas (e.g., the New

York City metropolitan area) are

examples of the former case. In such

areas, EPA procedures allow the

assumption that the transport of both

ozone and its precursors would be

reduced in accordance with anticipated

impacts of upwind control programs.

EPA believes that. this adjustment,

coupled with the fact that all

nonattainment area control strategies

are required to reduce future ozone

concentrations to the standard,

represents a technically defensible

approach to ozone transport and is

consistent with requirements of Sections

110(a)(2)(e) and 110(c) of the Clean Air

Act.

Comment: Many States are being "excused" from imposing reasonably

available controls for certain categories

of sources.

Response: The commentor has

misinterpreted the requirements of

Section 172(b)(2) of the Act. That section

does not require all reasonable controls;

rather, it requires that States adopt only

those controls that are found to be "reasonably available" in particular

nonattainment areas. This comment is

more fully addressed in Appendix II of

the Technical Support Document that

accompanies this notice.

Comment: EPA has failed to

promulgate CTG documents for a

number of source categories. The result

is a lack of thoroughness and uniformity

among States that are planning for

attainment of the ozone standards.

Response: EPA has pursued a policy

of encouraging and assisting the States,

to the extent possible, in identifying

economically efficient levels of pollution

abatement considering available control

methods for specific industries. In this

regard, EPA has taken the approach of

developing and distributing CTG

documents. EPA has not issued CTG

documents for all source categories as it

does not believe it would be practicable

or desirable to do so.

EPA does not have any reason to

believe that this situation is, in any way,

limiting the ability of ozone

nonattainment areas to maintain

reasonable further progress toward

attainment. EPA expects to issue

formally a new group of CTGs (GroupIll) in the near future and has accepted

commitments by States for the

subsequent adoption into their SIPs of

appropriate control requirements.

Finally, EPA believes that the

guidance published to date in available

CTGs is broad enough so as to permit

the States to make judicious and

technically responsible evaluation of

controls equivalent to the RACT

requirements for remaining sources.

Comment: Growth in VOC emissions

from new source categories remains

uncontrolled until EPA promulgates new

source performance standards (NSPS)

for several source categories. The

commentor states that lack of NSPS

Fedejal Register / Vol. 48,
51478 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 9, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

frustrates the correction of interstate

ozone pollution.

Response: The commentor is incorrect

in the argument that new sources remain

uncontrolled unless NSPS are issued.

Such sources must comply with Section

173 (lowest achievable emission rate

(LAER)) or Section 165 (best available

control technology (BACT))

requirements. In either case, control

levels at least as stringent as what NSPS

usually requires are expected.

B. Comments on August 9, 1983 Proposal

1. Barge and Tanker VOC Transfer and

Cleaning Operations

Comment: Commentors questioned

whether the State has the authority to

regulate barges and tankers since they

are regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard.

Response: New Jersey will have to

consult with the Coast Guard in the

development of its barge and tanker

control regulation in order to insure that

the requirements imposed do not

conflict with any Coast Guard

regulations. As one of the first steps to,

this effort, the State will have to insure

that it has adequate legal authority to

regulate these sources. Should the State

not be able to obtain legal authority for

this measure, it will have to revise its

SIP.

Comment: Commentors questioned

the safety of controlling gasoline vapors

emitted from barge tanker loading.

Response: While the loading of

gasoline into barges and tankers is

different from other types of gasoline

loading operations (e.g., truck loading),

there are similarities. Other transfer

operations are currently being safely

controlled through proper equipment

design. Safety will also have: to be- a

factor in the design of barge and tanker

VOC controls.

Comment: Commentors questioned

the reasonableness and cost

effectiveness of controlling barges and

tankers.

Response: An important consideration

in the cost of this control measure will

be the location of the control equipment.

Cost will be affected by whether the

equipment is aboard the barges or

tankers or at the shore loading facility.

In its development of this measure-the

State will have to make this.

determination and calculate its

economic impact.

Comment: Commentors questioned

the availability and feasibility of control

equipment which could be used for

barges- and tankers.

Response: The State will have to

conduct extensive studies to determine

what equipment can be used for barge

and tanker VOC control and what

control efficiency can be reasonably

required. As an example of the control

measure in operation, the State

indicated that at least one barge is

currently equipped to recover the vapors

it generates during loading. Also, the

recovery of gasoline vapors generated

during transfer at other points in the

distribution chain has been

demonstrated as feasible and has been

extensively implemented. Therefore,

while unique differences may exist

between barge and tanker loading

operations and other types of loading

operations, the types of control

equipment than can be used has been

proven. The State will be studying this

measure to resolve any problems before

it proposes a specific regulation.

Comment: Commentors requested an

extension to the comment period to

more fully document their concerns with

the extraordinary measure dealing. with

barge and tanker loading of gasoline.

Response: The request for extension

of the comment period was not honored

for the following reasons: * EPA is taking action on the State's

development andimplementation

program for this measure and not on the

specific content of a regulation.

Subsequent to adoption of the regulation

by the State, EPA will establish a

comment period as part of its

rulemaking action to incorporate the

specific regulation into the SIP.

* This measure is considered an

extraordinary measure for which the

State has provided an implementation

schedule that provides substantial time

for development and for public hearings

before State adoption.

* This control measure was

previously identified in the State's SIP

submittal of October 8, 1982 and

mentioned in EPA's proposed

rulemaking of February 3, 1983. EPA's

August 9, 1983 Federal Register notice

provided additional time to comment.

EPA believes that adequate time for

comment was provided in both of these

notices.

2. Architectural Coatings

Comment: Changes in the composition

of paint have occurred in recent years

and the commentor believes that the,

EPA emission factor used to estimate

VOC emissions from this source

category is no longer accurate.

Response: The State used an EPA

approved-emission factor for calculating

emissions from this category. EPA

emission factors are based on the results

of EPA research into sources of air

pollution. While this factor could have

been updated by the State if adequate

support for the change could be

provided, the use of the current factor is

acceptable. Prior to developing its

regulatiorl, the State may elect to update

its estimates.

Comment: A commentor questioned

the reasonableness of controlling the

many small users of architectural

coatings.

Response: Air pollution control

agencies traditionally have regulated

small sources, especially when a

persistent air pollution problem could

not be solved by the control of larger

sources. However, the commentor seems

to assume that the State will control the

actual users of these architectural

coatings when, in fact, this decision has

not yet been made. In the case of

architectural coatings, the task could be

made easier since the State may only

need, if necessary, to restrict the selling

of such coatings by wholesalers or

retailers.

Comment: A commentor questioned

the accuracy of the emission reductions

estimated to be achievable from

implementing architectural coating

controls.

Response: Once the full scope of this

measure is identified, as is committed to

in the SIP, the State will be in a position

to estimate more accurately the

measure's emission reduction potential.

However, the SIP's current estimates are

sufficiently accurate so as to be

acceptable to EPA.

Comment: Alternative formulations

for architectural coatings which meet

SIP requirements might not be available

for all the situations presently requiring

them.

Response: Substantial progress has

been made in recent years to develop

coatings which are environmentally

compatible and less costly to

manufacture. One of the driving forces

behind this effort has been air pollution

control requirements. With adequate

developmental time, as provided for in

the SIP, manufacturers should be able to

produce complying architectural

coatings for the majority of uses.

3. Lowering Emission Rate Exclusions

Comment. The cost-effectiveness of

regulating large numbers of smaller

sources and the costs of controls were

questioned."

Response: The State has proposed to

halve its current emission rate

exclusion, but has not presented specific

limits in its SIP. The cost of controls will

have to be considered by New Jersey in

developing these limits and these will be

made available for public comment prior

to adoption. While this measure has the

potential to affect a large number of

small sources, the options available to

New Jersey to achieve the VOC
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 9, 1983 / Ru4es and Regulations 51479

reductions needed to attain the ozone

standard are limited.

Comment: Since many small sources

operate intermittently, the accuracy of

the emission reductions attributed by

New Jersey to their control and,

consequently, the need for their control

are questionable.

Response: The State is generally

aware of the types of small sources which are currently excluded from

control and which types are feasible for

"control. In the development of its

specific control requirements, the State

will be concentrating on those sources

which will have the greatest effect on

attaining the ozone standard.

Comment: One commentor wanted to

make sure that New Jersey implemented

all available "ordinary" measures

before it implements its extraordinary

measures.

Response: The State has implemented.

or will soon be implementing, all

ordinary (or "reasonable") measures identified by EPA. The only areas where

additional emission reductions are

possible are in the extraordinary. measure category, which is composed of

those sources which have not

traditionally been controlled.

4. Inspection and Maintenance Program

Comment: Contrary to the

requirements of the Clean Air Act, New

Jersey has failed to submit certain

regulations associated with its I/M

program. Specifically, regulations for the

operation of the private inspection

stations, regulations providing the

specifications for the exhaust gas

analyzers, the revised emission

standards, and the procedures for

conducting the antitampering and

malfunction diagnosis work are not

included in the State's July 11, 1983

submittal.

Response: As discussed in Section II

of this notice, the State on September 26,

1983 submitted information which

appropriately addresses these concerns

as they relate to the operation.of private

inspection stations, specifications for

exhaust gas analyzers, and revised

emission standards. The State hls

committed in its SIP to implement an anti-tampering and malfunction

diagnosis program by January 1, 1985.

Information necessary for this program

will be developed prior to this date and

submitted to EPA.

Comment: If the private inspection

system is not extended beyond its initial

trial period, the SIP fails to commit the

State to full implementation of its new I/

M program.

Response: The July 11. 1983 and the

September 26, 1983 submittals commit

the State to implement fully the new I/M

program expansions described in its SIP

regardless of the status of the private

inspection system. The expansions

committed to by the State will be

implemented whether or not inspections

are conducted at private inspection

stations.

Comment: The SIP postpones

implementation of certain of the I/M

program's "extraordinary" measures

until after the 1987 attainment deadline.

Response:,This concern has been

adequately addressed in the State's

September 26, 1983 submittal. The State

now commits to the implementation of

all I/M measures by May 1, 1987. This

should be adequate to provide for

attainment of standards by December

31, 1987 because one full cycle of motor

vehicle inspections will have been

completed prior to the 1988 New Jersey

ozone season (generally May through

September).

Comment: There are no minimum

requirements concerning periodic

calibration of the exhaust gas analyzers.

Response: The September 26, 1983

submittal clearly states that exhaust gas

analyzers v'ill be calibrated, at a minimum, on a monthly basis. This

meets EPA's requirements.

Comment: The NJDMV has not

developed an analytic techni4ue and

survey model to evaluate the

effectiveness of the initial inspections to

be done at private inspection stations.

Response: The State has adequately

addressed all of EPA's I/M requirements

and will report regularly as to how these

requirements are being met. In addition

to meeting EPA requirements, the State

has committed to conducting its own analysis of the effectiveness of initial

inspections at the private-inspection

stations.

Comment: Reliance upon the less

effective, outdated exhaust gas

analyzers used by private inspection

centers may prevent emission reduction

milestones frorfh being attained.

Response: The State maintains a list

of exhaust gas analyzers that must be

used in the private inspection stations.

This list is periodically evaluated and

updated based upon analyzer

performance and other criteria. Also, as

mentioned in Section II of today's

notice, the State has committed to

monthly calibration of these analyzers

in order to assure that they operate

accurately. Finally, the State has

committed to require the use of state-ofthe-art analyzers at all new private

inspection stations and their use at

existing private inspection stations by

May 1, 1985.

Comment: The 90-day inspection

extension being granted at State

inspection stations is not discussed in

the 1979 SIP and, therefore, represents a

SIP violation.

Response: The State has included a

detailed description of its extension

procedures (which now provide for only

a maximum 45-day extension) in its

September 26, 1983 submittal. EPA is

approving these procedures because the

State explained that the procedures do

not permanently extend the inspection

cycle and therefore do not have an

impact on air quality. EPA believes that

additional opportunity to .comment on

this issue is unnecessary because the

lack of impact is so. clear.

IV. Conclusion

Based on its review of the submitted

documents and the comments received,

EPA finds that the 1982 revision to the

New Jersey SIP adequately provides for

the attainment by December 31, 1987 of

the air quality standards for ozone and

carbon monoxide in New Jersey.

Therefore, EPA is approving the New

Jersey SIP as it relates to these

pollutants.

With one exception today's action is

being made effective immediately since

the SIP revision being approved is

already in effect and EPA approval

imposes no additional regulatory

burden. EPA approval of a New Jersey

proposed rule to authorize currently

licensed automobile reinspection

stations to conduct initial inspection will

take effect when a duly authorized New

Jersey official executes the rule so as to

bind the State, provided that such

execution occurs within 30 days of

today's date (see Section II.B of today's

notice).

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 3 of Executive

Order 12291.

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 January 9, 1984.

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

Air pollution control, Ozone, Sulfur

oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead,

Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide,

and Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference.
51480 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 9, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: November 3. 1983.

William D. Ruckelshaus,

Administrator, Environmental Protection

Agency.

(Secs. 110(a), 172, 176 and 301(a) of the Clean

Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7502,

7506 and 7601(a))

Note.-Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

New Jersey was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

Subpart FF-New Jersey

1. Section 52.1570 is amended by

adding new paragraph (c)(34) as follows:

§ 52.1570 Identification of plan.

(c) The plan revisions listed below

were submitted on the dates specified.

(34) Revisions to the New Jersey State

Implementation Plan submitted on

November 23, 1982, January 18, 1983,

February 14, 1983, July 11, 1983, July 28,

1983 and September 26, 1983 by the New

Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection.

2. Section 52.1582 is amended by

removing paragraphs (a), (b) and (c);

redesignating paragraph (d) as (a) and

revising the introductory text of new

paragraph (a); and- adding a new

subparagraph (a)(4) and a new

paragraph (b) to read as follows.

§ 52.1582 Control strategy and

regulations: Ozone (volatile organic

substances) and carbon monoxide.

(a) Subchapter 16 of the New Jersey

Administrative Code, entitled "Control

and Prohibition of Air Pollution by

Volatile Organic Substances," N..A.C.

7:27-16.1 et seq. as revised on December

31, 1981 and effective March 1, 1982, is

approved with the following provisions

and conditions:

(4) The December 17, 1979 version of

Subchapter 16 is approved as a part of

the SIP only to the extent that it

addresses compliance dates for Group I

Control Techniques Guideline source

categories.

(b) Subchapter 17 of the New Jersey

Administrative Code, entitled "Control

and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Toxic

Substances," N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.1 et seq. as

revised on October 17, 1979 and

effective December 17, 1979, is approved

for the regulation of perchloroethylene

dry cleaners, as further clarified in a

New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection memorandum

"Subchapter 17 Requirements for

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

Systems" dated October 25, 1982.

3. Section 52.1605 is amended by

revising the entry for Subchapter 16 and

adding a new entry for Subchapter 17 to

the Table as follows:

§ 52.1605 EPA-approved New Jersey regulations.

State regulation State effective EPA approved date Comments date

Subchapter 16, "Control and Prohibition of Air Dec. 17. 1979 . Apr. 6, 1981, 46 FR 20556 ..................... The December 17. 1979 version of Subchapter 16 remains as a part of the SIP

Pollution by Volatile Organic Substances." only to the -extent that it addresses compliance dates for Group I CTG sources.

Mar. 1, 1982 .......... [Nov. 9, 1983, citation of this notice]... Emission limitations adopted by the State under and complying with §§ 16.6(cY(4)

and 16.6(c)(5) became applicable if transmitted to EPA. Variances adopted by

the State pursuant to §§ 16.9 and 16.10 become applicable only if approved by

EPA as SIP revisions (46 F 20551. April 6, 1981).

Subchapter 17, "Control and Prohibition of Air Dec. 17, 1979 . (Nov. 9, 1983, citation of this notice]... Subchapter 17 is included in the SIP only as it retates to the control of

Pollution By Toxic Substances." perchloroethylene.

[FR Doc. 83-30301 Filed 11-8-63; 845 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

40 CFR Part 52

[AD-FRL-2467-5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Massachusetts;

1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

Attainment Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State

Implementation Plan revisions

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts. These revisions will

reduce emissions from stationary and

mobile sources. The intended effect of

these actions is to control emissions of

volatile organic compounds, oxides of

nitrogen and carbon monoxide in order

to attain the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards as required under

Part D of the Clean Air Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 1983.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the submittal are

available for public inspection at Room

2111, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA

02203; Public Information Reference

Unit, EPA Library, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20460; Office of the

Federal Register, 1100 L Street, NW,

Room 8401, Washington, D.C. 20408 and

the Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Quality Engineering

(DEQE), One Winter Street, Eighth

Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia L. Greene, (617) 223-5131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 3, 1983 (48 FR 5044), EPA

published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPR) for the

Massachusetts 1982 Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide State Implementation Plan

(SIP) Revisions. After reviewing our

comments on the proposed SIP,

Massachusetts submitted on September

9,.November 2, November 17, 1982, and

February 2, March 21, April 7, April 26,

and May 16, 1983 a final SIP that

corrects deficiencies in the proposed

revisions. Background documentation

was submitted on December 28, 1982

and January 19, 1983 by-Kenneth A.

Hagg, Director of the Division of Air

Quality. The corrected revisions are

explained in detail in this Notice, but the

rationale for EPA's actions on revisions

that have not changed since publication

of the NPI will not be restated here. The

proposed actions of the NPR were based

on two documents referenced as the

draft SIP revisions of May 21 and the

November 22, 1982 commitment letter.

The November letter was dated

November 17 and received by EPA on

November 22. Today's rulemaking will

refer to this document as the November

17 submittal.

Three public comments on the

February 3, 1983 NPR (48 FR 5044) have

been received and responses to those

comments appear in appropriate