[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 70 (Friday, April 11, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17766-17771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9382]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 non-CTG 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 pre-enactment 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 17768]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Requirements'').
    EPA policy allows for the full approval of state generic RACT rules 
prior to EPA approval of all of the case-by-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 (NO<INF>X</INF>) 
RACT rules under title 7, chapter 27, Subchapter 19, ``Control and 
Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen.''

[[Page 17769]]

Emissions of VOCs and NO<INF>X</INF> from these sources are related. As 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions decrease, VOC emissions tend to increase. The 
new VOC provisions are intended to minimize the VOC emissions while 
insuring that NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 non-utility 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 17770]]

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 non-emergency 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 non-CTG 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

[[Page 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