# + 2

(,1 1/,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,

Statementof Facts

Those facts necessary to a disposition ofthe assigned errors are set forth in the argument, infra.2

Errorsand Argument
I

Specification I ofcharge I fails to state an offense under the Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice.

The allegation ofabsence in Specification I ofthe Charge Ifails to. indicate that the absence was "without
proper authority." The United States Court ofMilitary Appeals has held that such an omission is fatal to the legal sufficiency ofthe specification. United Statesv. Schultz, 16 U.S.C.M.A. 488, 37 C.M.R. 108 (1967); UnitedStatesv. Fout, 3U.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 behalfofaccused to establish his proper exemplary conduct in civilian and military life (R. 108-133). The mi-Aaryjudge limited his instructions on sentence to the maximum authorized punishment and the voting procedure.

In UnitedStates v. Wheeler,17 U.S.C.M.A. 274, 38 C.M.R. 72 (1967), the failure ofthe military judge to tailor the instructions on sentence tothe 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.

SentenceAppropriateness

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 tohave accused return to his organization (R. 110).

Wherefore, only so much ofthe
sentence as provides forforfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 6months, confinement at hard labor for 6 months, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade should be approved by this Honorable Court.

Where a statement offacts generally applies to all ofthe assigned errors, it maybe set forth here. Date John C.Smith,Esq.,
IActStreet, Union,NewJersey. AlbertJones, Captain, JACC, AppellateDefenseCounsel Harry Arnold, Colonel, JAGC, AppellateDefenseCounsel
Certificate ofService

I certify that a copy ofthe foregoing

was mailed or delivered to appellate
Government counsel on the

- day of 19. Name Address

Dated: November 3, 1983. M.S.Healy, OSDFederal RegisterLiaisonOfficer, Department ofDefense.

[FRDoc. 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 ofTitle 35 of the Code ofFederal 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-FRL2467-4]
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 PartD ofthe 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 SIPrevision meets applicable requirements on the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action becomes effective on November 9, 1983 with the exception ofa proposed New Jersey rule
to authorize currently licensed automobile reinspection stations to conduct initial inspections. EPA approval ofthis 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 ofthe State's submittals, public comments received on EPA's proposals, and an EPA Technical Support Document to this action are available forinspection 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, EPALibrary, 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 ofthe 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, AirPrograms

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 ofthe 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, on December 29, 1978 the State ofNew 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 ofthe ozone and carbon monoxide air quality standards. EPA approved this revision on March 11, 1980 (45FR 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 ofthe standards, the State

wasrequired to submit another SIP revision by July 1,1982.

On October 8, 1982,the NewJersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection (NJDEP) submitted a draft ofthe required SIPrevision.Publichearings

were held bythe State onits draft SIP revision on October 14, 19, and20, 1982 and thedocument was supplemented with additional information on November 23, 1982. Based onEPA's review ofthese two submittals, on February 3,1983 (48FR 5144)EPA 

### proposed approval ofthedraft SIP revision. (Thereader is referred to this February 3,1983 notice and to Section III oftoday'snotice for an overall description ofNew Jersey's ozone and carbon monoxide control program.) This proposed approval noted that EPA's final action would be dependent on its analysis ofcomments received during the EPApublic comment periodand on thecontent ofthefinal SIPultimately adopted by the State.EPA also identified in its-February 3,1983 notice three elements ofthe draft SIPrevision which needed additional development before EPA could take final approval action.

OnJanuary 18,1983, the Governor submitted afinalSIPrevision,which

was supplemented withadditional information fromNJDEP onFebruary 14, 1983.The informational needs identified by EPA inits February 3,1983 proposal

were submittedbyNJDEPon July 11 and 28, 1983. OnAugust 8 and 9, 1983 New Jersey heldpublic hearings concerning themotor vehicle emissionsinspection and maintenance (I/M) program contained in itsJuly 11,1983 submittal.

On August 9, 1983 (48FR36139) EPA 

### proposed toapprove the State's July 11 and July 28, 1983 submittals asmeeting the needs EPAidentified in its February 3.1983 proposal. (Thereader is also referred to this August 9, 1983notice for

a complete discussion ofhowthese informational needs were met.) As specifically requested byEPAin its August9,1983 proposal, on September 26,1983 NJDEP submitted procedures for the operation oftheprivate inspection stations. A summaryofthese procedures and other supplemental information that

was submitted and the results ofEPA's review ofthis material are contained in th next section oftoday'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.forprivate inspection stations,

" Mechanic certification, " Specifications for exhaust gas analyzers,

* Emission'test standards formotor vehicles,

" Ozone modeling, ° The volatile organic compound (VOC) emission inventory,

" Conformity Criteria, and " Public hearings. The submittal .alsoprovided 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 testprocedures. The contents ofthe September 26, 1983 submittal are discussed in detail in the following subsections oftoday's notice.

B. Operating Procedures forPrivate InspectionStations.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'sI/M requirements. Under that program, vehicles are inspected initially in Stateoperated inspection stations. Vehicles thatmust undergo repair may be reinspected in licensed private inspection stations.The proposed emergency rulewould add to the existing program provisions authorizing private inspection stations to conduct initial inspections as well as reinspections. The proposedrule also specifies procedures for initial inspections at private stations.

EPA has reviewed the proposed emergency rule and finds that the procedures forinitial inspections at private stations are approvable. They

are substantially the same as the existing procedures forreinspections at private inspection stations.Therefore, EPAis approving the new emergency rule forinitial 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 NewJersey official executes the rule so as to bind theState.Moreover, this contingent approval will expire within 30 days of today's date ifthe State does not adopt the rule.Expiration ofthe contingent approval ofthe emergency rulewill not affect the approval of the current I/M program based on initial inspections at State stations. Thatprogram will continue to be approved even without EPA approval ofinspections at private stations.

The State has committed to permanently adopt arule 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 obtainEPA approval as a SIP revision ofthis permanently adopted rule. After submittal ofthe permanently adopted rule by the State, EPA intends
to take timely action so as to minimize the period oflime,ifany, between expiration ofthe emergency rule and EPA action on thepermanently adopted rule.

Finally, it is useful to note that the improvements thatthe State has committed to'in order.to increase the effectiveness ofits I/M-program (e.g., anti-tampering checks, a reduction in the period ofthe current new car exemption, inclusion ofcommercial vehicles into the.I/Mprogram) will be implemented under either inspection system.This fact is discussed ingreater detail in Section IV.B.4 oftoday's notice.

C.MechanicCertification. TheState's submittal contains an emergency rule (Appendix 12, Attachment 14-B) which requires the certification ofmechanics
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 withthe SIP's comnitment (Appendix12) to adopt standards for mechanic -certification.

D. Specifications forExhaustGas Analyzers.'The State's submittal contains another emergency rule (Appendix 12, Attachment 7) which specifies standards forthe exhaust gas analyzers tobe used-at private inspection stations. The rule, which also became effective on September 2, 1983, exuires onNovember 1, 1983 and will be permanently adopted consistent with due consideration ofpublic comments,

### 51474 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 9, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

in substantially unchanged form and willbe submitted to EPA for approval. Theemergency rule is consistent with the SIP'scommitment (Appendix 12) to prepare specifications for exhaust gas analyzers.

E.Emission TestStandards. The State's submittal contains a proposed draft revision to Subchapter 15, "Control and Prohibition ofAir Pollution from Gasoline-Fueled Motor Vehicles" (Appendix 12, Attachment 3): This revision provides: * Revised emission standards for light-duty vehicles forimplementation, * Emission standards and test procedures forheavy-duty gasolinefueled vehicles, and

- Prohibitions against tampering with emissions control equipment by individuals. The SIPcontains a commitment (Appendix 12) torevise Subchapter 15 for adoption ofall ofthese measures by July 1, 1984.The proposed draft revision is consistent with this commitment. EPA will take a separate rulemaking action

on thisproposed SIPrevision after EPA completes its detailed review.

F.OzoneModeling.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, thismodeling demonstrates that a 59 percent reduction in VOC emissions in the NJNY-CT AQCR is needed for attainment ofthe ozone standard. EPA finds this determination to be acceptable.

G. VOC-EmissionInventory.The State's submittal contains revisions to the SIP's inventory of VOC emissions in theNJ-NY-CT AQCR (Appendix 1, Attachment 1). The revisions relate to changes in the baseline inventory and the effect ofimplementatioon ofthe SIP'sextra-ordinary measures. These changes were previously submitted to EPA on July28, 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 oftransportation plans, programs and projects with the SIP (Appendix 49). In itsAugust 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 NJTCCadopted the proposed criteria and procedures without substantial changes on August 2, 1983 and thus EPA
approves them.

I. PublicHearing. The State's submittal contains a summary ofthe
comments itreceived at the State's public hearings ofAugust 8 and 9, 1983 (Appendix 50). The hearing concerned changes to the motorvehicle control

measures contained in the SIP.

At the hearings, one ofthe
commentors expressed concern about the proposed schedule extending until January 1, 1988for the implementation ofthe SIP's I/M related extraordinary

measures. In response, the State has revised its SIP to advance the implementation date forthese measures fromJanuary 1, 1988to 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 ofthe ozone standards within the statutory time frame established by the Clean AirAct (i.e., attainment by December 31, 1987). EPA thus approves the revised schedule.



### J.OtherIssues.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 ifthe private inspection system is not extended beyond its one-year trial period. * The State is committed to conducting monthly gas calibration checks ofexhaust gas analyzers at the private inspection stations.

* The testprocedures for Group II Control Techniques Guideline source categories are contained in "AirTest 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 ofthe New Jersey State Implementation Plan for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide.

A. The Ozone ControlProgram. The entire State ofNew 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 NewJersey'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 NewJersey Intrastate AOCR

.............................. : .......... 29 Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper Delaware Valley InterstateAGCR

.......................................... : .................... 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 metrictons/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 IIVapor

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.

dt/M program modifications include: diesel i/M and revised te'ting procedures.

'To bedetermined in thefuture. IWaste idisposal includes: huzardous waste irerators. and landfill controls.

Subchapter*_6, "Control and Prohibition ofAir Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds", (N.J.A.C.7:26-16)

asrevised on December31,71981 and made effective March 1, 1282 is being incorporated into the SIPby today's action. The adequacy of this regulation

was discussed inEPAsFebruary 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 tobe in compliance had passed and all sources
were expected to be in compliance. However, EPA requires the specification ofan 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 iffederal enforcement action is necessary.

Subchapter 17, "Control and Prohibition ofAir Pollution by Toxic Substances," as revised on October 17, 1979 and made effective on December 17, 1979 is being incorporated intothe SIP by today's action.This is being done for the purpose ofcontrolling the emissions ofperchlorethylene (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 forPerchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Systems", dated October 25, 1982, which is also beingincorporated 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 monoxid_ Also, seventy-five communities in'the Statehave been designated underSection 107(d) &fthe Clean Air Act as beingunclassifiable for carbonmoroxide.

The SIPdemonstrates that allofthe State's designatedand predicted 'hot spot&' will-come into attainment prior to December31, "1987 Thiswill be accomplished by the'State through its

new I/M-programand the implementation ,f.transportation control

measures at the hot.spots.The State's attainment demonstration also relies
upon continuation of theFederal Nlotor Vehicle ControlProgram, which ensures thatnew vehicles meet stringent emission standards. The State further commits tolocate airqualitymonifors 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 preciselythe attainment
status ofthese hot.spots and tofurther refine .theState's ability to predict carbon monoxide concentrations using modeling procedures.

IV. Discussion ofComments

During the public comment period established byEPA's February 3, 1983 proposal and ending on March .21, 1983. EPA received comments from seven commentors which addresed 20 principal issues.During thepublic
commentperiod 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 inthis section oftoday'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 NewJersey State Implementation Plan, September 1983." This document is available at the locations identified in the ADDRESSES section of today's notice.
A. Commentson EPA 'sFebruary 3, 1983 Proposal
1. OzoneModeling

Comment:One commentor questioned whyEPA accepts theresults ofozone modeling which employed the Dodge chemical mechanism, since EPA employs a Chemical Bond-III mechanism (CB-I) inits Northeast Corridor Regional Modeling Project study work. Thecommentorbelieves that, ifthe CBIII mechanism had been used by the State and ifall other modeling factors remained equal, the required control of VOCs,would havebeen-educed by 10.8 percent in the New Jersey portion ofthe Metropolitan Philadelphia AQ CR.

Response:A review of themodeling analysis forthe Metropolitan Philadelphia AQ CR as contained "inthe SIPindicates thatit was'performed using a chemical mechanism -approved in theEPA guidelines. Theseguidelines for modeling are contained in an EPA document entitled, "'Guidelines for Use ofCity-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 ofnonmethane organic compounds aloft is incorporated into the model on the SIP control-day, that the required degree of control ofVOCs for attainment ofthe

ozone standard is Virtually indenfical regardless or whether the Dodge chemical mechanism or CB-Ill is used.

Comment:EPARegion I'I andEPA's Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards appear to-have inconsistent positions on the use ofthe CB-Ill mechanism.

Response:The positions ,ofthese two EPA offices arenot 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 beused, provided that certain test requirements are met.

Comment:The ozone modeling conducted forthe SIPdoes not recognize the possible design bias introduced by using meteorological data from the year 1980.

Response:In its ozonemodeling analysis, New Jersey used date from the period'1979 through'1981. This was in response to an EPA recommendation that three years ofozone 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 ofthe commentor relates to the higher-than-average number ofdays in 1980 when the ambient temperature exceeded 90 degrees. While it is true that ozone formation isrelated to a threshold temperature value, the magnitude and frequency ofozone episodes aremore 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 ofthe violations ofthe 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 EPARegion IIhas not reviewed 'a number of citations in the Weston report which relate to the uses and validation ofEKMA.

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 byNew Jersey in developing its SIPrevision 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 thatEKMA modeling results have compared favorably with actual ozone levels.

Comment:The four AQCRs in New Jersey shouldbe viewed as discrete airsheds. The State's concept ofequity among AQCRs for the control ofVOC 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 ControlMeasures
Comment:There are several major VOC sources identified in the SIP that

are not currently regulated through application ofreasonably available control technology (RACT). The SIP does not demonstrate that RACT is otherwise being met at these sources nor does it commit tofuture regulation.

Response:There are 198 major

sources ofVOCs 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) isnot 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 ofcontrol is presumed to represent RACT.Therefore, it willbe necessary forthe State to determine RACT on an individual source-bysource basis.The State has committed in its SIPto regulate these sources and has identified its implementation schedule. EPAguidelines allow for the acceptance ofsuch schedules.

Comment:The State makes a less than unequivocal commitment to the application ofRACT to minor sources.

Response:In its SIP, New Jersey has committed to adopt regulations to control the emission ofVOCs from currently unregulated minor sources and hasidentified a detailed implementation schedule for this effort. Moreover, in New Jersey themajority ofminor

sources currently are being controlled through enforcement of Subchapter 16.

Comment:The State has not conducted a complete analysis ofall

sources with VOC emissions above 100 tons per year so as to identify the specific emission reductions that are credited to themin theSIP.

Response:In Appendix 1,Attachment 

### Eto its SIP, New Jersey has included tables which identify the principal emitting operations at a sampling of major facilities. With this information and theknowledge ofwhat emission reductions are reasonable from the application ofexisting 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 ofthe ozone standard by December 31, 1987, the State commits in 

### its SIP to thefuture 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 onJuly 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 ofits extraordinary control measures. The commentor believes that the development ofsuch

measures requires interstate consultation in order for the measures to be effective.

Response:EPA supports the concept ofregional 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 VehicleInspectionand 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 ofI/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 ofpublication ofthis notice. Comment:The State (at the time ofthe publication ofEPA's February 3, 1983 proposal) has decreased the frequency ofits motorvehicle inspections from

once per year to once every other year The commentor believes that this is a violation ofthe I/Mprogram commitment contained in the 1979 New Jersey SIPand 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 ofthe program.

Response:As ofJuly 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 ofits
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 inSection II.A-E ofthis notice.

Comment:The State, in the joint NJDEP- NewJersey Division ofMotor Vehicles (NJDMV) Task Force program, has not demonstrated how it addresses the specific measures required to determine the effectiveness ofan 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, thenew I/M program was not detailed in the document made available to the public.

Response:In its October 8, 1982 draft SIPrevision, which was subject to public hearing, the State presented the ten options which it was considering at. the time for thefuture ofits I/M program. The I/Mprogram ultimately selected by the State and described in its July 11, 1983 submittal to EPA was from among these tenoptions. This program was the subject oftwo New Jersey public hearings (held on August 8 and 9, 1983) and ofEPA'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. GeneralComments

Comment:The SIP does not contain enforceable measures which will assure attianment ofair quality standards by 1987. Some ofthe measures contained in theSIP were not enforceable or were not adopted at the time ofSIP submittal. Furthermore, the 1984 mid-course correction procedure described in the SIPis contrary to the directives ofthe Clean Air Act.

Response:As discussed in its February 3, 1983 proposal, EPA intends to be appropriately flexible in reviewing SIPsubmittals.

In some cases, ifa state submits sufficient enforceable measures to provide for reasonable further progress during the first few years of the extended attainment period, EPAwill accept schedules for the submittal ofthe 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 mustinclude specific dates by which the measures willbe 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 ofmeeting 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 itsreference to a midcourse correction, New Jersey simply indicates that it intends to do additional analysis ofits progress toward attainment in 1984 based upon any new information that becomes available. EPA does not believe that this diminishes the quality ofNew Jersey's SIP commitments.

Comment:The SIPdoes not provide for reasonable further progress towards the attainment ofthe ozone standard because it doesnot 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 ofon the annual testing cycle assumed in the SIP.

Response:The SIPprovides for adequate emission reductions ofVOCs 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/Mprogram.
6.National PolicyIssues
Comment:The EPA sanctions policy is deficient in failing to take into account the fact that ozone in the major metropolitan areas ofthe eastern United States is a problem ofregional 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 ofphotochemical (e.g., ozone) pollution:

* The case ofa major metropolitan

areawhose ambient ozone concentrations and resulting control estimates are inflgenced by transport, but not dominated by it; and

* The case ofa smaller metropolitan

area in which transport is the overwhelming cause ofhigh observed

ozone concentrations. Itis 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 Citymetropolitan area) are examples ofthe former case. In such
areas, EPA procedures allow the assumption that the transport ofboth

ozone and its precursors would be reduced in accordance with anticipated impacts ofupwind control programs. EPAbelieves 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 ofSections 110(a)(2)(e) and 110(c) ofthe Clean Air Act.

Comment:Many States are being "excused" fromimposing reasonably available controls for certain categories ofsources.

Response:The commentor has misinterpreted therequirements of Section 172(b)(2) ofthe 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 thisnotice.

Comment: EPAhas failed to promulgate CTG documents for a number ofsource categories. The result is a lack ofthoroughness and uniformity among States that are planning for attainment ofthe ozone standards.

Response:EPA has pursued a policy ofencouraging and assisting the States,
to the extent possible, in identifying economically efficient levels ofpollution abatement considering available control methods for specific industries. Inthis 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 anyway, limitingthe ability ofozone nonattainment areas to maintain reasonable further progress toward attainment. EPAexpects to issue formally a new group ofCTGs (GroupIll) in the near future and has accepted commitments by States for the subsequent adoption into their SIPs of appropriate control requirements.

Finally, EPAbelieves 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 forremaining sources.

Comment: Growth in VOC emissions fromnew source categories remains uncontrolled until EPA promulgates new
source performance standards (NSPS) for several source categories. The commentor states that lack ofNSPS 

### 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 complywith 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. CommentsonAugust9, 1983Proposal

1.BargeandTankerVOC Transferand CleaningOperations

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 consultwith the Coast Guard in the development ofits barge and tanker control regulation in orderto insure that the requirements imposed do not conflict with any Coast Guard regulations. As one ofthe first steps to, this effort, the State will have to insure that ithas adequate legal authority to regulate these sources. Should the State
not be able to obtain legal authority for thismeasure, it will have to revise its SIP.

Comment:Commentors questioned the safety ofcontrolling gasoline vapors emitted from barge tanker loading.

Response:While the loading of gasoline into barges and tankers is different from other types ofgasoline loading operations (e.g., truckloading), there are similarities. Other transfer operations are currently being safely controlled through proper equipment design. Safety will also have: tobe-a factor in the design ofbarge and tanker VOC controls.

Comment:Commentors questioned the reasonableness and cost effectiveness ofcontrolling barges and tankers.

Response:An important consideration in the cost ofthis 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 thismeasure-the State will have to make this. determination and calculate its economic impact.

Comment:Commentors questioned the availability and feasibility ofcontrol 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 forbarge and tanker VOC control and what control efficiency can be reasonably required. As an example ofthe 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 ofgasoline 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 ofcontrol 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 ofgasoline.

Response:The request forextension of the comment period was not honored for the following reasons:

* EPA is takingaction on the State's development andimplementation program for this measure and not on the specific content ofa regulation. Subsequent to adoption ofthe regulation by the State, EPAwill establish a comment period as part ofits rulemaking action to incorporate the specific regulation into the SIP.

* This measure is considered an extraordinary measure forwhich the Statehas 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 ofOctober 8, 1982 and mentioned in EPA's proposed rulemaking ofFebruary 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 ofthese notices.

2. ArchitecturalCoatings

Comment: Changes in the composition ofpaint 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 ofEPA research into sources ofair pollution. While this factor could have been updated by the State ifadequate support forthe change could be provided, the use ofthe current factor is acceptable. Prior to developing its regulatiorl, the State may elect to update its estimates.

Comment: A commentor questioned the reasonableness ofcontrolling the many small users ofarchitectural coatings.

Response:Air pollution control agencies traditionally have regulated small sources, especially when a persistent airpollution problem could
not be solved by the control oflarger

sources. However, the commentor seems to assume that the State will control the actual users ofthese 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, ifnecessary, to restrict the selling ofsuch coatings by wholesalers or retailers.

Comment:A commentor questioned the accuracy ofthe emission reductions estimated to be achievable from implementing architectural coating controls.

Response:Once the full scope ofthis

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 tobe 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 inrecent 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 ofuses.
3.LoweringEmissionRateExclusions

Comment.The cost-effectiveness of regulating large numbers ofsmaller

sources and the costs ofcontrols were questioned."

Response:The State has proposed to halve its current emission rate exclusion, buthas 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 VOCFederal 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 isgenerally

aware of the types ofsmall sources which are currently excluded from control and which types are feasible for "control.In the development ofits 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 itimplements its extraordinary

measures.

Response:The State has implemented.

orwill 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.Inspectionand MaintenanceProgram
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 theprivate 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 thisnotice, the State on September 26, 1983 submitted information which appropriately addresses these concerns
as they relate to the operation.ofprivate inspection stations, specifications for exhaust gas analyzers, and revised emission standards. The State hls committed in its SIPto 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:Ifthe private inspection system is not extended beyond its initial trial period, the SIP fails to commit the State to full implementation ofits 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 ofthe status ofthe private inspection system. The expansions committed to by the State will be implemented whether ornot inspections

are conducted at private inspection stations.

Comment:The SIPpostpones implementation of certain of the I/M program's "extraordinary" measures until after the 1987 attainment deadline.

Response:,Thisconcern 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 ofstandards by December 31, 1987 because one full cycle ofmotor vehicle inspections will have been completed prior to the 1988 NewJersey

ozone season (generally May through September).

Comment:There are no minimum requirements concerning periodic calibration ofthe 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 ofthe initial inspections to be done at private inspection stations.

Response:The State has adequately addressed all ofEPA'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 ofthe effectiveness ofinitial 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 ofexhaust gas analyzers that must be used in the private inspection stations. Thislist is periodically evaluated and updated based upon analyzer performance and other criteria. Also, as mentioned in Section IIoftoday's notice, the State has committed to monthly calibration ofthese 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 isnot discussed in the 1979 SIP and, therefore, represents a SIPviolation.

Response:The State has included a detailed description ofits 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 thisissue is unnecessary because the lack ofimpact 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 inNew Jersey. Therefore, EPA is approving the New Jersey SIPas itrelates to these pollutants.

With one exception today's action is being made effective immediately since the SIPrevision being approved is already in effect and EPA approval imposes no additional regulatory burden. EPA approval ofa 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 oftoday's notice).

The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this rule from the requirements ofSection 3 ofExecutive Order 12291.

Under Section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals forthe appropriate circuit by January 9, 1984. This actionmay not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2)).

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part52

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, 176and 301(a) ofthe Clean AirAct, as amended (42 U.S.C.7410(a), 7502, 7506 and 7601(a))

Note.-Incorporation by reference ofthe State Implementation Plan for the State of New Jersey was approved by the Directorof the Federal Register on July 1,1982.

Part 52, Chapter I,Title 40 of the Code ofFederal 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 ofEnvironmental Protection.

2. Section 52.1582 is amended by removing paragraphs (a), (b)and (c); redesignating paragraph (d) as (a) and revising the introductory text ofnew paragraph (a); and-adding a new subparagraph (a)(4) and a new paragraph (b) to read as follows. §52.1582 Control strategyand regulations:Ozone (volatile organic substances) andcarbon monoxide.

(a) Subchapter 16 ofthe New Jersey Administrative Code, entitled "Control and Prohibition ofAir 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 ofAir 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 theregulation ofperchloroethylene 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 NewJersey 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 byVolatile 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 (46F 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 ByToxic Substances." perchloroethylene.

[FRDoc.83-30301 Filed 11-8-63; 845 am]
BILLINGCODE 6560-50-M

40 CFR Part 52
[AD-FRL-2467-5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; 1982Ozone 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 inorder
to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as required under Part D ofthe Clean Air Act. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 1983. ADDRESSES: Copies 

### of the submittal are available forpublic 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 ofProposed 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 SIPthat
corrects deficiencies in the proposed revisions. Background documentation

was submitted on December 28, 1982 and January 19, 1983 by-Kenneth A. Hagg, Director ofthe Division ofAir 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 ofthe NPI will not be restated here. The proposed actions ofthe NPR were based

on two documents referenced as the draft SIP revisions ofMay 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 (48FR 5044) have been received and responses to those
comments appear in appropriate