17766 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

each side of the designated column of

parade vessels as it transits between the

Verrazano Narrows Bridge and the

waters of the Hudson River west of

Riverbank State Park, between West

137th and West 144th Streets,

Manhattan, New York.

(2) The moving safety zone includes

all waters within a 200 yard radius of

each parade vessel from its turning

point near Riverbank State Park until

the vessel is safely berthed at various

locations in the Port of New York and

New Jersey.

(3) The safety zone includes all waters

of the Hudson River between Piers 84

and 88, Manhattan, New York, from the

parade vessel column east to the

Manhattan shoreline as the column

passes in front of Piers 84 through 88.

(b) This regulation is effective from

7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on May 21, 1997,

unless extended or terminated sooner by

the Captain of the Port, New York.

(c) Regulations.

(1) The general regulations contained

in 33 CFR 165.23 apply to this safety

zone.

(2) All persons and vessels shall

comply with the instructions of the

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the

designated on scene patrol personnel.

U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel

include commissioned, warrant, and

petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon

being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard

vessel via siren, radio, flashing light, or

other means, the operator of a vessel

shall proceed as directed.

Dated: March 28, 1997.

Richard C. Vlaun,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port, New York.

[FR Doc. 97–9217 Filed 4–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region II Docket No. NJ17–1–166; FRL–

5809–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Reasonably

Available Control Technology for

Volatile Organic Compounds for the

State of New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) proposes approval of a

request from New Jersey to revise its

State Implementation Plan to

incorporate revisions to Subchapter 16

‘‘Control and Prohibition of Air

Pollution by Volatile Organic

Compounds.’’ These revisions relate to

the control of volatile organic

compounds from major stationary

sources not subject to control

techniques guidelines. The intended

effect is to reduce the emissions of

volatile organic compounds and thereby

reduce ozone concentrations in the

lower atmosphere. EPA proposes to find

that the State has met the Clean Air Act

requirement to adopt reasonably

available control technology for nonCTG major sources.

EPA also proposes approval of

revisions to Subchapter 8 ‘‘Permits and

Certificates,’’ Subchapter 17 ‘‘Control

and Prohibition of Air Pollution by

Toxic Substances,’’ Subchapter 23

‘‘Prevention of Air Pollution From

Architectural Coatings and Consumer

Products’’ and Subchapter 25 ‘‘Control

and Prohibition of Air Pollution by

Vehicular Fuels,’’ and Air Test Method

3—Sampling and Analytical Procedures

for the Determination of Volatile

Organic Compounds from Source

Operations (Title 7, Chapter 27B,

Subchapter 3).

Revisions to these regulations only

involve administrative changes made to

insure consistency with Subchapter 16

revisions. This proposal would revise

the State Implementation Plan so that it

contains the most current versions of

the State regulations.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before May 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: Ronald J. Borsellino,

Chief, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II Office, 290 Broadway, New

York, New York 10007–1866.

Copies of the State submittal(s) are

available at the following addresses for

inspection during normal business

hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866

New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection, Office of

Air Quality Management, Bureau of

Air Quality Planning, 401 East State

Street, CN418, Trenton, New Jersey

08625

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

R. Truchan or Raymond K. Forde, Air

Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866, (212) 637–4249

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (Act) as amended

in 1990 sets forth a number of

requirements that states with areas

designated as nonattainment for ozone

must satisfy and sets forth a timetable

for satisfying these Act requirements

(section 182). These requirements are

further explained in the General

Preamble to the Act (57 FR 13513),

which was published on April 16, 1992.

Under section 182(b)(2) of the Act,

nonattainment areas classified as

moderate or above are required to adopt

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) rules for volatile organic

compound (VOC) sources. There are

three parts to the section 182(b)(2)

RACT requirement: (1) RACT for

sources covered by an existing control

techniques guideline (CTG)—i.e., a CTG

issued prior to the enactment of the

1990 Amendments; (2) RACT for

sources covered by a post-enactment

CTG; and (3) all major sources not

covered by a CTG (non-CTG major

sources). This requirement also applies

to all areas within the Ozone Transport

Region. The EPA has defined RACT as

the lowest emission limitation that a

particular source is capable of meeting

by the application of control technology

that is reasonably available considering

technological and economic feasibility

(44 FR 53762; September 17, 1979).

New Jersey is part of the Ozone

Transport Region (OTR), therefore, the

section 182(b)(2) RACT requirements

are applicable to sources throughout the

State. The schedule for implementing

the RACT rules in an OTR require final

installation of the actual VOC controls

by May 31, 1995 on those sources for

which installation by that date is

practicable.

New Jersey’s VOC regulation,

Subchapter 16, ‘‘Control and Prohibition

of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic

Compounds,’’ of Chapter 27, Title 7 of

the New Jersey Administrative Code,

was previously approved by EPA as

fulfilling the requirement to address all

source categories covered by a preenactment CTG document (59 FR 17933,

April 15, 1994). Since enactment of the

Clean Air Act amendments, EPA has

published three CTGs controlling

synthetic organic chemical

manufacturing industry (SOCMI)

distillation operations, SOCMI reactor

operations, and wood furniture

manufacturing operations. New Jersey’s

previously approved Subchapter 16

regulates both SOCMI operations under

the process source gases provisions, and

wood furniture under the surface

coating provisions. A fourth CTG was
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 17767

published on August 27, 1996 for

shipbuilding and repair, however

regulations for this CTG are not due

until August 27, 1997.

This proposed action addresses the

requirement to regulate non-CTG major

sources of VOC. The major source

definition depends on the classification

of the nonattainment area and whether

the area is in the OTR (‘‘major’’ as

defined in section 302, section 182(c),

(d), and (e), and section 184(b)). For

areas in an OTR other than those areas

designated severe nonattainment, the

definition of major VOC source is any

source that emits or has the potential to

emit at least 50 tons per year. In a severe

nonattainment area, the definition of a

major VOC source is any source that

emits or has the potential to emit at least

25 tons per year.

II. State Submittals

On November 15, 1993, the

Commissioner of the New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

and Energy submitted a State

Implementation Plan revision, part of

which contained adopted revisions to

Subchapter 16, ‘‘Control and Prohibition

of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic

Compounds,’’ of Chapter 27, Title 7 of

the New Jersey Administrative Code,

effective December 20, 1993. This was

intended to fulfill the non-CTG major

source requirement of the Act. EPA

determined that the November 15, 1993

submittal was complete on December

29, 1993. As of November 15, 1993 New

Jersey only adopted a portion of the

proposal which involved Section 16.1

definitions and Section 16.17 which

requires major sources of VOCs not

elsewhere regulated in Subchapter 16 to

implement RACT (Generic RACT).

On June 21, 1996, the Commissioner

of the New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection (NJDEP)

submitted a State Implementation Plan

revision which contained two revisions

to Subchapter 16 and two

‘‘Administrative Changes and

Corrections’’ to Subchapter 16. EPA is

proposing action on all changes which

have occurred in Subchapter 16

(effective March 2, 1992) since EPA’s

last approval on April 15, 1994 (59 FR

1994). This includes the following

versions of Subchapter 16 with effective

dates of December 20, 1993, June 20,

1994, December 5, 1994, May 15, 1995,

and July 17, 1995. It should be noted

that several new sections have been

added to Subchapter 16 and this has

necessitated recodifying several

sections. The new section numbering

will be used.

It should also be noted that final

approval of this State Implementation

Plan revision will remove the

requirement to adopt a federal

implementation plan. The need for a

federal implementation plan resulted

from EPA’s finding on January 15, 1993

that New Jersey had failed to submit a

complete State Implementation Plan

revision as required by the Act on

November 15, 1992.

III. Findings

A. Generic RACT Provisions

Section 16.1 Definitions

New Jersey revised section 16.1 to

include appropriate definitions for

terms used in the new provisions. These

are generally consistent with EPA

guidance. The following new terms are

important in understanding the generic

RACT provisions which have been

added to Subchapter 16: federally

enforceable, potential to emit, State

Implementation Plan and major VOC

facility.

1. Federally enforceable—Section

16.1’s definition for federally

enforceable provides a definition of

what limitations and conditions can be

considered enforceable by the EPA. It

contains a list of limitations and

conditions, such as EPA’s new source

performance standards (40 CFR Part 60),

national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (40 CFR Part

61), and provisions of the applicable

State Implementation Plan. In addition,

the State includes ‘‘any permit or order

issued pursuant to the Air Pollution

Control Act, N.J.S.A. 26:2C–1 et seq., of

this chapter.’’ This part of the definition

is acceptable only in so far as it refers

to permits that are issued pursuant to

programs approved as part of the State

Implementation Plan, i.e. Subchapter 8

which is the only State mechanism for

issuing permits to air pollution sources.

EPA is proposing approval of this

definition.

2. Potential to emit—Section 16.1’s

definition for potential to emit provides

direction on how to determine a

source’s or facility’s potential to emit

which is used to determine whether a

source is subject to given requirements.

It is based on the maximum capacity of

a source or facility operating 8760 hours

a year unless there are any federally

enforceable limitations in place limiting

the hours of operation. This definition

is consistent with EPA’s guidance and

policy. EPA is proposing approval of

this definition.

3. State Implementation Plan—

Section 16.1’s definition for State

Implementation Plan refers to plans

which have been prepared by the State

and approved by EPA pursuant to

section 110 of the Act. This definition

is consistent with EPA’s guidance and

policy. EPA is proposing approval of

this definition.

4. Major VOC facility—Section 16.1

defines a major VOC facility as any

facility with the potential to emit 25 or

more tons of VOC per year. EPA is

proposing approval of this definition.

Section 16.17 Facility-Specific VOC

Control Requirements

Section 16.17 provides a procedure

for establishing VOC control

requirements that represent RACT for a

particular process, item of equipment or

source operation that is not specifically

regulated by name elsewhere in

Subchapter 16 and is located at a major

VOC facility. This would cover those

non-CTG major sources required to be

controlled pursuant to section 182(b)(2).

This procedure provides four control

options for meeting RACT:

1. Facility is currently operating

controls which collect at least 90

percent of the VOC emissions and

prevent from being released at least 90

percent of the VOCs that were collected;

pollution prevention measures can

contribute emission reductions towards

meeting these emission limitations, so

long as an equivalent level of emission

reductions is achieved.

2. Facility will be served by controls

which collect at least 90 percent of the

VOC emissions and prevent from being

released at least 90 percent of the VOCs

that were collected; pollution

prevention measures can contribute

emission reductions towards meeting

these emission limitations, so long as an

equivalent level of emission reductions

is achieved.

3. Facility has or will have federally

enforceable limits on its potential to

emit restricting it to below 25 tons per

year.

4. Facility will develop and have

approved an alternative VOC control

plan which represents RACT for that

facility.

Sources subject to other provisions in

Subchapter 16 may also apply for an

alternative VOC control plan. However,

application for an alternative VOC

control plan does not relieve the source

from complying with applicable

compliance dates.

In the first two situations listed above,

RACT is defined as at least 90 percent

capture of VOC emissions and at least

90 percent control of the captured VOC

emissions. The source must demonstrate

that these limits have been met and

provide for adequate recordkeeping

which can demonstrate that the

compliance plan has been met. The

source must also have the appropriate

permits and certificates. The source
17768 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

must be in compliance with these

provisions by May 31, 1995. Should a

source use pollution prevention

methods to meet this requirement, the

provision requires ‘‘at least the same

level of VOC emission reductions.’’

Since the provision is clear that the 90

percent capture and 90 percent control

is the criteria, any compliance plan

which does not meet this criteria will

not be consistent with Subchapter 16.

EPA is proposing approval of these

provisions.

In the third situation, a facility whose

actual emissions of VOCs in 1990 and

each year thereafter has been less than

25 tons per year including fugitive

emissions, may comply by limiting their

potential emissions to less than 25 tons

per year. The source must submit and

have approved a compliance plan which

demonstrates that these limits have been

met. The source must also have the

appropriate permits and certificates

which limit the potential to emit, and

provide for adequate recordkeeping.

Without an approved compliance plan

the source would be out of compliance

with this section.

The State provided the public with an

opportunity to comment on the

acceptability of this method of

compliance. The sources must meet the

criteria in section 16.17, which includes

recordkeeping sufficient to determine

whether the source is complying, and

this would be considered an acceptable

method of complying. New Jersey

requires any limits on potential

emissions to be federally enforceable,

and contained in a sources’’ operating

permit. EPA is proposing approval of

this provision.

In the fourth situation, an alternative

VOC control plan must be approved by

NJDEP. It must include a technical

analysis of all the possible control

technologies and process alterations.

For those alternatives that are

technologically feasible, the plan must

evaluate their economic feasibility. The

plan must be supported with adequate

documentation and identify the

proposed RACT level. The source must

also have the appropriate permits and

certificates and provide for adequate

recordkeeping. The source must be in

compliance with these provisions by

May 31, 1995. In this situation, the

NJDEP will publish a Notice of

Opportunity for Public Comment and

shall submit the alternative VOC control

plan to EPA as a proposed State

Implementation Plan revision. EPA is

proposing approval of this provision.

Section 16.17(o) identifies the reasons

why the State ‘‘may’’ revoke an approval

of an alterative VOC control plan. One

reason would be an EPA disapproval of

the plan after EPA rulemaking action.

The State Implementation Plan approval

process is not complete until EPA grants

approval of a revision, therefore, use of

the word ‘‘may’’ provides notice of

future State revocation should EPA

disapprove of a submittal. Given EPA’s

authority under the Act to require the

State to correct any EPA identified

deficiencies and the State’s recognition

that State approval does not guarantee a

State Implementation Plan approval,

EPA is proposing an approval of this

provision.

For sources who want to comply with

the alternative VOC control plan

provisions, Section 16.17 provides a

procedure and schedule which must be

followed in order to be in compliance

with Subchapter 16. Should a source

not comply with this procedure, it

would constitute a violation of

Subchapter 16 and would subject the

source owner or operator to State and

federal enforcement action and

associated civil and applicable criminal

penalties. EPA has determined this is

sufficient to insure that sources comply.

EPA is proposing approval of this

provision.

Subsequent to New Jersey’s

submission of these State

Implementation Plan revisions, national

policy discussions ensued regarding the

approvability of state regulations that

contain generic provisions (or in New

Jersey’s case, alternative VOC control

plan provisions), in establishing RACT

requirements for major sources of VOC

emissions. These discussions resulted in

additional Agency guidance.

Generic provisions are those portions

of a regulation which require the

application of RACT to an emission

point, for which the degree of control is

not specified in the rule but rather is to

be determined on a case-by-case basis

taking technological and economic

factors into consideration. Under the

Act, these individually determined

RACT limits would then need to be

submitted by a state as a State

Implementation Plan revision for EPA

approval. On November 7, 1996, EPA

issued a policy memorandum providing

additional guidance for approving

regulations which contain these

‘‘generic provisions.’’ (Sally Shaver

memorandum to EPA Division

Directors, ‘‘Approval Options for

Generic RACT Rules Submitted to Meet

the non-CTG VOC RACT Requirement

and Certain NOX RACT Requirements’’).

EPA policy allows for the full

approval of state generic RACT rules

prior to EPA approval of all of the caseby-case major source RACT

determinations, provided an analysis is

completed that concludes that the

remaining source RACT determinations

involve a de minimis level of VOC

emissions and such pending

determinations must be submitted as

State Implementation Plan revisions.

Such an approval does not exempt the

remaining sources from RACT; rather it

is a de minimis deferral of the approval

of these case-by-case RACT limits.

EPA has evaluated information

provided by New Jersey concerning the

possible use by major sources of the

generic RACT provisions in order to

meet the RACT requirement. New Jersey

has identified five sources that are using

the generic RACT provisions. One has

been submitted as a State

Implementation Plan revision and four

are currently being processed by the

State and will be submitted as State

Implementation Plan revisions. Based

on the emission reductions claimed in

New Jersey’s 15 Percent Plan for

Subchapter 16, these sources represent

three percent of the VOC emission

reductions resulting from sources

coming into compliance with

Subchapter 16. EPA has determined that

the remaining emission reductions are

de minimis. Therefore, EPA proposes to

find that New Jersey’s VOC RACT

regulation conforms with EPA’s policy

regarding the approval of generic RACT

provisions or rules.

As stated above, full approval of

Subchapter 16 will not relieve sources

of the obligation to develop, submit and

implement RACT level controls. Nor

will it relieve New Jersey of the

obligation to ensure that all sources

within the State comply with the VOC

RACT requirements of the Act by

adopting and implementing emission

limitations. The proposed approval of

Subchapter 16 requires that all major

sources of VOC must comply with

RACT and this requirement would be

enforceable by EPA as well as citizens

under Section 304 of the Act. If EPA

determines that the regulated sources

and the State are not complying with

the requirement to adopt RACT, EPA

could issue a State Implementation Plan

call or a finding of non-implementation

of the State Implementation Plan. EPA

is proposing approval of these generic

RACT provisions.

B. Source Specific Provisions

1. Combustion sources. Subchapter 16

now regulates the following types of

combustion sources: boilers, stationary

gas turbines, stationary internal

combustion engines and asphalt plants.

These sources are also regulated under

the nitrogen oxides (NOX) RACT rules

under title 7, chapter 27, Subchapter 19,

‘‘Control and Prohibition of Air

Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 17769

Emissions of VOCs and NOX from these

sources are related. As NOX emissions

decrease, VOC emissions tend to

increase. The new VOC provisions are

intended to minimize the VOC

emissions while insuring that NOX

emissions are reduced as required by

Subchapter 19.

a. Utility Boilers

Section 7:27–16.8 specifies emission

limitations for utility boilers and

requires the owners and operators of

these sources to install a continuous

emission monitoring system for carbon

monoxide. The emission limits

specified by New Jersey are the lowest

that the boilers can reasonably achieve

while still complying with the emission

limits in the NOX RACT rules. In

addition, the sources are required to

annually adjust the combustion process

to minimize VOC emissions. The

emission limits are enforceable through

appropriate averaging times, test

methods, compliance schedules and

reporting and recordkeeping

requirements. EPA is proposing

approval of this provision.

b. Non-Utility Boilers

Section 7:27–16.8 also specifies

requirements for non-utility boilers. The

control strategy depends on the

maximum gross heat input rate of nonutility boiler. Smaller boilers are

required to annually adjust the

combustion process to minimize VOC

emissions, while the larger size boilers

must meet emission limits. Also, any

non-utility boiler with a maximum gross

heat input rate of at least 250 million

BTU per hour shall install a continuous

emissions monitoring system for carbon

monoxide. The emission limits

specified by the State are the lowest

level that the boilers can reasonably

achieve while still complying with the

emission limits in the NOX RACT rules.

The emission limits are enforceable

through appropriate averaging times,

test methods, compliance schedules and

reporting and recordkeeping

requirements. EPA is proposing

approval of this provision.

c. Stationary Gas Turbines

Section 7:27–16.9 specifies emission

limitations for stationary gas turbines.

The emission limits specified by New

Jersey are the lowest that the turbines

can reasonably achieve while still

complying with the emission limits in

the NOX RACT rules. In addition, the

sources are required to annually adjust

the combustion process to minimize

VOC emissions. The emission limits are

enforceable through appropriate

averaging times, test methods,

compliance schedules and reporting and

recordkeeping requirements. EPA is

proposing to approve this provision.

d. Stationary Internal Combustion

Engines

Section 7:27–16.10 specifies emission

limitations for stationary internal

combustion engines. The emission

limits specified by New Jersey are the

lowest that the engines can reasonably

achieve while still complying with the

emission limits in the NOX RACT rules.

In addition, the sources are required to

annually adjust the combustion process

to minimize VOC emissions. The

emission limits are enforceable through

appropriate averaging times, test

methods, compliance schedules and

reporting and recordkeeping

requirements. EPA is proposing to

approve this provision.

e. Asphalt Plants

Section 7:27–16.11 specifies emission

limitations for batch mixed and drum

asphalt plants. The emission limits

specified by New Jersey are the lowest

that the asphalt plants can reasonably

achieve while still complying with the

emission limits in the NOX RACT rules.

In addition, the sources are required to

annually adjust the combustion process

to minimize VOC emissions. The

emission limits are enforceable through

appropriate averaging times, test

methods, compliance schedules and

reporting and recordkeeping

requirements. EPA is proposing

approval of this provision.

f. Flares

Section 7:27–16.13 requires that any

flare in use after May 31, 1995 at a major

VOC facility must have been designed to

reduce VOC emissions by at least 95

percent. The rule prohibits the use of

noncomplying flares after that date. The

flare must also be installed and operated

in accordance with the manufacturers’

specifications. Based upon present

technology available, flares have been

attaining control efficiency levels at 95

percent and greater. Regulatory

compliance is maintained via

inspections, certification, recordkeeping

and recording requirements, and

operation and maintenance procedures

to ensure that the control technology is

installed and operating sufficiently. EPA

is proposing approval of this provision.

2. VOC Transfer Operations

Section 16.4 specifies emission

limitations and operating practices for

operations that involve the transfer of

VOCs other than gasoline. This section

applies to receiving vessels or tanks,

delivery vessels, transfer operations and

contains requirements similar to those

required in Section 16.3 for gasoline

transfer and storage. Receiving vessels

(including storage tanks, delivery

vessels, manufacturing process vessels)

of 2,000 gallons or greater are required

to have submerged filling. Storage tanks

of 2,000 gallons or greater capacity with

emissions of 1,000 pounds VOC per year

must have a vapor control device.

Delivery vessels must be inspected and

certified as passing pressure tests and

must be loaded and unloaded within

specified pressure and vacuum

standards. Transfer operations with

emissions of 2,000 pounds VOC per year

are required to have a vapor balance

system or vapor control device that is 90

percent effective.

Section 16.5 specifies emission

limitations and operating practices for

marine vessel loading of VOCs and

ballasting operations. Emissions from

the transfer of VOCs must be reduced by

95 percent and transfers must meet leak

tightness standards. EPA is proposing

approval of this provision.

3. Surface Coating Operations.

Sections 16.7 has been revised to add

three new surface coating categories:

concrete pipe coating, sheet-fed gravure

printing and screen printing operations

to the original categories previously

approved by EPA. These new categories

are subject to the same general

requirements for recordkeeping,

reporting, options for coming into

compliance and testing. Concrete pipe

coating operations are subject to the

same emission limitations as metal pipe

coating operations. Inks used in screen

printing operations are limited to 3.3

pounds of VOC per gallon, with the

exception that inks used on fabrics are

limited to 2.9 pounds of VOC per gallon.

There are also two specialty ink

limitations: conductive inks are limited

to 8.5 pounds of VOC per gallon and

special purpose screen printing inks

which must withstand adverse

environmental conditions are limited to

6.7 pounds of VOC per gallon. As an

alternative to complying with the

coating limitations, a source could

choose to comply by using add-on

control equipment which captures at

least 70 percent of the VOC emissions

and controls 90 percent of these

captured emissions using carbon

adsorption equipment or 95 percent if

using a thermal oxidizer.

New Jersey has also revised the

control requirements for the other

regulated printing operations which

choose to comply by using add-on

controls to reflect advances in

equipment capabilities. Sources

installing new thermal oxidizers will
17770 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

have to meet the 95 percent destruction

requirement. Carbon adsorption

equipment will continue to meet the 90

percent control requirement.

New limitations have been added for

fountain solutions used to dampen

printing plates in order to prevent ink

transfer to areas which will not contain

a printed image. The VOC content of

fountain solutions is limited to 5

percent if the solution is kept at a

temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit or

less and 3 percent if the solution is at

a temperature greater than 55 degrees

Fahrenheit. EPA is proposing approval

of these provisions.

4. Leak Detection and Repair at

Chemical Plants.

The leak detection and repair

requirements previously contained in

section 16.6 have been moved to a new

section 16.18. Section 16.18 specifies

the leak detection and repair

requirements for various types of

facilities, including those for which a

CTG was published. These were

previously approved by EPA. Section

16.18 now requires chemical plants

which are major, that is, which process

550 tons/year of VOC, to conduct leak

detection and repair identified leaking

components. These requirements were

based on the previously issued CTGs

and leak detection and repair

requirements contained in ‘‘National

Emission Standards for Organic

Hazardous Air Pollutants.’’ EPA is

proposing approval of this provision.

5. Natural Gas Pipelines—Blowdown.

Section 16.21 requires natural gas

pipeline owners or operators to control

the emissions of VOC during nonemergency release of natural gas from

the pipeline when performing

inspections, maintenance or repairs.

This is referred to as blowdown and

covers releases of VOC of 2,000 pounds

or greater. Blowdown events which

would have an emission rate above 3.5

pounds of VOC per hour would be

regulated by section 16.16 which would

require 95 percent control. Since the

smaller blowdown events are infrequent

and can occur at pump stations,

compressor stations and at valves along

the pipeline (instead of at a fixed

location), it is difficult to require a

specific level of control or operating

procedures. Instead these events are

required to be included in ‘‘Control

Measure Plans,’’ which requires

reporting of such events and the

reduction of VOCs through use of

control technology or operating

procedures which limit VOC emissions.

Unlike RACT demonstrations

required by section 16.17, minor

blowdown sources are not automatically

required to submit Control Measure

Plans unless requested to do so.

However, annual reporting of blowdown

events is required and New Jersey may

require amendments if the State or EPA

identifies deficiencies and denies

approval of a proposed Control Measure

Plan.

While EPA does not require RACT for

this minor source category, New Jersey

has taken credit for emission reductions

resulting from controlling this source

category in its 15 Percent Rate of

Progress Plan. Therefore, EPA

recognizes the need for review and

revision of such plans in the event that

the Control Measure Plans do not meet

the requirements of section 16.21(f).

While the submission of such plans is

not automatic, EPA has determined that

because the reductions from such

sources are minimal (potentially no

more than one percent of the VOC

reductions resulting from the revisions

to Subchapter 16) and because New

Jersey has identified a surplus of

reductions which is greater than the

reductions it credits for this source

category, EPA proposes approval of

Section 16.21. Regulatory compliance is

maintained via implementation of the

Control Measure Plans and annual

reports required by this provision.

C. Other Changes

In addition to expanding Subchapter

16 with the new sections discussed

above, New Jersey has made a number

of less extensive changes to Subchapter

16. Minor changes have been made to

the previously approved sections and

some have also been renumbered. The

definition of VOC has been changed to

make it consistent with EPA’s. New

Jersey has made administrative changes

to Subchapter 16 in order to correct

errors it had identified. These were

generally of a typographical nature

involving references, punctuation and

omissions and did not substantively

change the requirements previously

adopted. Along with the recodification,

several sections were also reorganized to

improve their clarity. These are

consistent with the original adoptions.

The State also removed interim

milestones which have past, while

retaining the final compliance date. EPA

is proposing approval of these changes.

D. Related Changes to Other

Subchapters

Subchapters 8, 17, 23, 25, and Air

Test Method 3. New Jersey also

submitted as part of this State

Implementation Plan revision, revisions

to Subchapter 8 ‘‘Permits and

Certificates,’’ which provides the

mechanism which New Jersey uses for

issuing permits and certificates;

Subchapter 17 ‘‘Control and Prohibition

of Air Pollution by Toxic Substances,’’

which restricts the emission of toxic

substances; Subchapter 23 ‘‘Prevention

of Air Pollution From Architectural

Coatings and Consumer Products’’

which limits the amount of VOC in

architectural coatings and paints;

Subchapter 25 ‘‘Control and Prohibition

of Air Pollution by Vehicular Fuels’’

which regulates gasoline; and Air Test

Method 3—Sampling and Analytical

Procedures for the Determination of

Volatile Organic Compounds from

Source Operations (Title 7, Chapter 27B,

Subchapter 3). The revisions made to

these Subchapters primarily involve

changing the definition of VOC to make

it consistent with EPA’s and minor

administrative changes similar to those

described in III.C. above. EPA is

proposing approval of the revisions to

Subchapters 8, 23, 25, and Air Test

Method 3.

IV. Summary

EPA has evaluated the submitted

revisions for consistency with its

provisions, EPA regulations and EPA

policy. EPA is proposing approval of

Subchapter 16. EPA is also proposing to

approve the revisions of Subchapters 8,

17, 23, 25, and Air Test Method 3.

Neither the ozone attainment

demonstration nor other aspects of the

ozone State Implementation Plan are

being revised by this action. EPA,

therefore, is only addressing the

adequacy of Subchapter 16 in meeting

section 182(b)(2) with regard to nonCTG major sources and the ability of

this revision to fulfill EPA requirements.

EPA is not making a finding concerning

other aspects of its State

Implementation Plan at this time. EPA

is only proposing approval of the

addition of the new control

requirements.

Nothing in this proposed rule should

be construed as permitting or allowing

or establishing a precedent for any

future request for revision to any State

Implementation Plan. Each request for

revision to the State Implementation

Plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 17771

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

State Implementation Plan approvals

under section 110 and subchapter I, part

D of the Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the federal

State Implementation Plan approval

does not impose any new requirements,

EPA certifies that it does not have a

significant impact on any small entities

affected. Moreover, due to the nature of

the Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis

would constitute federal inquiry into

the economic reasonableness of state

action. The Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning State

Implementation Plans on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S.

246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed does not include a

federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

The Administrator’s decision to

approve or disapprove the State

Implementation Plan revision will be

based on whether it meets the

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)–(K)

and part D of the Act, as amended, and

EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 2, 1997.

William J. Muszynski,

Deputy Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–9382 Filed 4–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL–5810–9]

Regulations of Fuels and Fuel

Additives: Reformulated Gasoline

Covered Areas Provision Modification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: This document announces the

time and place for a public hearing

regarding EPA’s proposed rule to

modify the covered areas provision of

the reformulated gasoline (RFG) rule.

The agency published this proposed

rule in the Federal Register on March

28, 1997 (See 62 FR 15077 for further

information on the proposal).

DATES: EPA will conduct a public

hearing on the proposed rule on April

18, 1997, in Washington, DC beginning

at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will continue

until all interested parties have had an

opportunity to testify. If you wish to

testify at this public hearing, contact

Karen Smith at (202) 233–9674 by April

16, 1997. If no party has contacted EPA

by that date and stated their interest in

testifying on the proposal, the hearing

with be subject to cancellation without

further notification. If you want to know

if the hearing has been canceled contact

the person named above.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be

held from 9:00 a.m. until its completion

at the Holiday Inn Capitol Hill, South

Ballroom, 415 New Jersey Avenue,

Washington, DC. Material relevant to

this document have been placed in

Docket A–96–30. The docket is located

at the Air Docket Section, Mail Code

6102, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington

DC 20460, in room M–1500 Waterside

Mall. Documents may be inspected from

8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying docket

material.

Written comments should be

submitted (in duplicate) to Air Docket

Section, Mail Code 6102, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. A

copy should also be sent to Karen Smith

at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this

notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Smith at U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Air and

Radiation, 401 M Street, SW (6406J),

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 233–9674.

Procedures for Public Participation

A. Comments and the Public Docket

The scope of EPA’s modification of

section 80.70(k) of the reformulated

gasoline rule is to allow states to opt

into the federal RFG program for any

area classified as marginal, moderate,

serious or severe ozone nonattainment

area as of November 15, 1990, the date

of the enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, or any time later.

EPA is seeking comments on whether a

minimum lead time of up to one year

should be used in setting the effective

date and whether this should apply to

former nonattainment areas that opt-in

and/or areas that are classified as

nonattainment when they opt-in.

Persons with comments containing

propriety information must distinguish

such information from other comments

to the greatest extent and label it as

‘‘Confidential Business Information.’’ If

a person making comments wants EPA

to base the final rule in part on a

submission labeled as confidential

business information, then a nonconfidential version of the document

which summarizes the key data or

information should be placed in the

public docket. Information covered by a

claim of confidentiality will be

disclosed by EPA only to the extent

allowed by the procedures set forth in