Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 2945 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii). 

c. By removing paragraph (e)(4). 

§ 51.905 How do areas transition from the 

1-hour NAAQS to the 8-hour NAAQS and 

what are the anti-backsliding provisions? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * Once an area attains the 1- 

hour NAAQS, the section 172 and 

182 contingency measures under the 

1-hour NAAQS can be shifted to 

contingency measures for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and must remain in the 

SIP until the area is redesignated to 

attainment for the 8-hour NAAQS. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–806 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2008–0497, FRL–8763–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Jersey 

Reasonable Further Progress Plans, 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology, Reasonably Available 

Control Measures and Conformity 

Budgets 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on 

portions of two State Implementation 

Plan revisions submitted by New Jersey 

that are intended to meet several Clean 

Air Act (Act) requirements for attaining 

the 0.08 part per million (ppm) 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards. EPA is proposing approval 

of: The 2008 reasonable further progress 

plan and associated 2008 ozone 

projection year emission inventories, 

contingency measures for the 2008 

reasonable further progress plan, 2008 

conformity budgets used for planning 

purposes, and the reasonably available 

control measure analysis. In addition, 

EPA is proposing a conditional approval 

of New Jersey’s efforts to meet the 

reasonably available control technology 

requirement. The intended effect of this 

action is to approve those programs that 

meet Act requirements and to further 

achieve emission reductions that will be 

critical to attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standard for ozone 

in New Jersey’s two nonattainment 

areas. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 17, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket Number EPA–R02– 

OAR–2008–0497, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901 

• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2008–0497. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. EPA requests, if 

at all possible, that you contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view 

the hard copy of the docket. You may 

view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Raymond Forde 

(forde.raymond@epa.gov) concerning 

emission inventories and reasonable 

further progress and Paul Truchan 

(truchan.paul@epa.gov) concerning 

other portions of the SIP revision, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866, (212) 637–4249. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

II. Background Information 

A. What Are the Act Requirements for a 

Moderate 8-Hr Ozone Nonattainment 

Area? 

1. History and Time Frame for the State’s 

Attainment Demonstration SIP 

2. Moderate Area Requirements 

III. What Was Included in New Jersey’s SIP 

Submittals? 

IV. EPA’s Review and Technical Information 

A. Emission Inventories 

1. What Are the Act Requirements? 

2. What Emission Inventories Were 

Included in the SIP? 

3. What Is EPA’s Evaluation? 

B. Reasonable Further Progress Plans 

1. What are the Act Requirements? 

2. What Reasonable Further Progress Plans 

Were Included in the SIP? 

3. What Is EPA’s Evaluation? 

C. Contingency Measures 

1. What Are the Act Requirements? 

2. What Contingency Measures Were 

Included in the SIP? 

3. What Is EPA’s Evaluation? 

D. RACT for Stationary Sources 

1. What Are the Act Requirements? 

2. How Did New Jersey Perform Its RACT 

Analysis? 

3. What Were the Results of New Jersey’s 

Analysis of RACT for Stationary 

Sources? 

4. What Is EPA’s Evaluation? 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
2946 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1Unless otherwise specifically noted in the 

action, references to the 8-hour ozone standard are 

to the 0.08 ppm ozone standard promulgated in 

1997. 

E. RACM Analysis 

1. What Are the Act Requirements? 

2. How Did the State Perform the RACM 

Analysis? 

3. What Were the Results of the RACM 

Analysis? 

4. What Is EPA’s Evaluation? 

F. Conformity Budgets 

1. What Are the Act Requirements? 

2. What Conformity Budgets Were 

Included in the SIP? 

3. What Is EPA’s Evaluation? 

V. What Are EPA’s Conclusions? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) has reviewed elements of New 

Jersey’s comprehensive State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for 

the 0.08 ppm 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS 

or standard) 1 along with other related 

Clean Air Act (Act) requirements 

necessary to ensure attainment of the 

standard. The EPA is proposing 

approval of: the 2008 reasonable further 

progress plan and associated 2008 ozone 

projection emission inventories, 

contingency measures for the 2008 

reasonable further progress plan, 2008 

conformity budgets used for planning 

purposes, and the reasonably available 

control measure analysis, because the 

State of New Jersey’s Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has 

fully addressed the Act’s requirements. 

In addition, while EPA commends New 

Jersey for its excellent effort to meet the 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) requirement, EPA is unable to 

fully approve the State’s RACT SIP 

revision because portions of the 

submission are deficient. Because the 

State has committed to correct the 

deficiencies by April 1, 2009, which is 

no more than one year from our 

anticipated final action on the SIP, we 

are proposing to conditionally approve 

this component of the SIP submittal. At 

this time, EPA is continuing to review 

the other components of the New Jersey 

submission and plans to address those 

other components of the SIP submittal 

in one or more separate proposed 

actions in the near future. 

EPA’s analysis and findings are 

discussed in this proposed rulemaking 

and a more detailed discussion is 

contained in the Technical Support 

Document for this Proposal which is 

available on line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

EPA–R02–OAR–2008–0497. 

II. Background Information 

A. What Are the Act Requirements for 

a Moderate 8-Hr Ozone Nonattainment 

Area? 

1. History and Time Frame for the 

State’s Attainment Demonstration SIP 

In 1997, EPA revised the health-based 

NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) averaged over 

an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8- 

hour ozone standard based on scientific 

evidence demonstrating that ozone 

causes adverse health effects at lower 

ozone concentrations and over longer 

periods of time than was understood 

when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone 

standard was set. EPA determined that 

the 8-hour standard would be more 

protective of human health, especially 

with regard to children and adults who 

are active outdoors, and individuals 

with a pre-existing respiratory disease, 

such as asthma. 

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA 

finalized its attainment/nonattainment 

designations for areas across the country 

with respect to the 8-hour ozone 

standard. These actions became 

effective on June 15, 2004. The entire 

state of New Jersey is located in two 

multi-state 8-hour ozone moderate 

nonattainment areas, the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island, NYNJ-CT nonattainment area, and the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, 

PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area. The 

New Jersey portion of the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island, NYNJ-CT nonattainment area consists of 

the following New Jersey counties: 

Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, 

Middlesex, Morris, Monmouth, Passaic, 

Somerset, Sussex, Union and Warren 

and will be referred to as the Northern 

New Jersey Counties. The New Jersey 

portion of the Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE 

nonattainment area consists of the 

following New Jersey counties: Atlantic, 

Burlington, Camden, Cape May, 

Cumberland, Gloucester, Ocean, Mercer 

and Salem and will be referred to as the 

Southern New Jersey Counties. 

These designations triggered the Act’s 

requirements under section 182(b) for 

moderate nonattainment areas, 

including a requirement to submit an 

attainment demonstration. EPA’s Phase 

1 8-hour ozone implementation rule, 

published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 

23951) (Phase 1 Rule) specifies that 

states must submit attainment 

demonstrations for their nonattainment 

areas to the EPA by no later than three 

years from the effective date of 

designation, that is, by June 15, 2007. 

2. Moderate Area Requirements 

On November 9, 2005, EPA published 

Phase 2 of the 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule (70 FR 71612) 

(Phase 2 Rule) in which it addresses the 

control obligations that apply to areas 

designated nonattainment for the 8-hour 

NAAQS. Among other things, the Phase 

1 and Phase 2 Rules outline the SIP 

requirements and deadlines for various 

requirements in areas designated as 

moderate nonattainment. For such 

areas, reasonably available control 

technology plans were due by 

September 2006 (40 CFR 51.912(a)(2)). 

The rules further require that modeling 

and attainment demonstrations, 

reasonable further progress plans, 

reasonably available control measures, 

projection year emission inventories, 

motor vehicle emissions budgets and 

contingency measures were all due by 

June 15, 2007 (40 CFR 51.908(a), and 

(c)). 

III. What Was Included in New Jersey’s 

SIP Submittals? 

After completing the appropriate 

public notice and comment procedures, 

New Jersey made a series of submittals 

in order to address the Act’s 8-hour 

ozone attainment requirements 

described in Section II.A.2. On August 

1, 2007, New Jersey submitted its RACT 

rules, which included a determination 

that many of the RACT rules currently 

contained in its SIP meet the RACT 

obligation for the 8-hour standard, and 

also included commitments to adopt 

revisions to several regulations where 

the State identified more stringent 

emission limitations that it believed 

should now be considered RACT. On 

October 29, 2007, New Jersey submitted 

a comprehensive 8-hour ozone SIP for 

the New Jersey portions of the New 

York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, 

NY-NJ-CT and the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE nonattainment areas. It included 

attainment demonstrations, reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plans for 2008 

and 2009, reasonably available control 

measures analyses for both areas, 

contingency measures, on-road motor 

vehicle emission budgets, and general 

conformity emission budgets for 

McGuire Air Force Base and Lakehurst 

Naval Air Station. These SIP revisions 

were subject to notice and comment by 

the public and the State addressed the 

comments received on the proposed 

SIPs before adopting the plans and 

submitting them for EPA review and 

approval into the SIP. Finally, as part of 

the RACT evaluation, on December 14, 

2007, New Jersey submitted to EPA an 

assessment of how it planned to address 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 2947 

EPA’s recently revised Control 

Technique Guidelines (CTGs). 

IV. EPA’s Review and Technical 

Information 

A. Emission Inventories 

1. What Are the Act Requirements? 

An emissions inventory is a 

comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources and is required by section 

172(c)(3) of the Act. For ozone 

nonattainment areas, the emissions 

inventory must contain volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) emissions because these 

pollutants are precursors to ozone 

formation. 

2. What Emission Inventories Were 

Included in the SIP? 

a. 2002 Base Year 

New Jersey submitted its proposed 

2002 Base Year emission inventories on 

February 21, 2006 and final 2002 Base 

Year emission inventories on May 18, 

2006. EPA proposed to approve New 

Jersey’s 2002 Base Year inventories on 

May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26895) and 

approved the emission inventories on 

July 10, 2006 (71 FR 38770). The reader 

is referred to these rulemakings for 

additional information concerning the 

emission inventories and EPA’s 

approval. A summary of the 2002 base 

year emission inventory is included in 

Tables 1 and 2 of this action. 

b. Projection Years 

The 2002 VOC and NOX

anthropogenic emissions are projected 

to 2008 and 2009 in order to determine 

the VOC and NOX reductions needed for 

the rate of progress plans and for the 

attainment demonstrations. The 2008 

and 2009 projection year emission 

inventories are calculated by adjusting 

the 2002 base year inventory using 

factors that estimate growth from 2002 

to 2008 and 2009. EPA requires specific 

growth factors be considered for each 

source type in the inventory since 

sources typically change at different 

rates. The 2008 and 2009 inventories 

were also adjusted by the State to reflect 

the benefits of control measures that 

were adopted since the 2002 emission 

inventory and those that are expected to 

be adopted. Tables 1 and 2 show 2008 

and 2009 VOC and NOX projection 

emission inventories after applying the 

appropriate growth indicators/ 

methodologies to the 2002 base year 

emission inventory for New Jersey’s 

portion of each ozone nonattainment 

area and to the expected controls. 

TABLE 1—NORTHERN NEW JERSEY COUNTIES 2002 BASE YEAR, 2008 AND 2009 PROJECTION YEAR EMISSION

INVENTORIES

Ozone season VOC and NOX emissions 

(in tons/day) 

2002 Base year actual inventory 2008 Projection year inventory 

controlled 

2009 Projection year inventory 

controlled 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Point ............................................. 68 .2 152 .7 50 .5 51 .3 48 .9 53 .8 

Area .............................................. 243 .5 24 .4 218 .7 21 .8 210 .8 22 

Non-Road Mobile ......................... 121 .6 161 87 .9 120 .9 82 .2 117 .2 

On-Road Mobile ........................... 183 378 .9 85 .3 143 .6 79 133 .5 

Total ...................................... 616 .3 717 442 .4 337 .6 420 .9 326 .5 

TABLE 2—SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY COUNTIES 2002 BASE YEAR, 2008 AND 2009 PROJECTION YEAR EMISSION

INVENTORIES

Ozone season VOC and NOX emissions 

(in tons/day) 

2002 Base year actual inventory 2008 Projection year inventory 

controlled 

2009 Projection year inventory 

controlled 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Point ............................................... 45 .4 127.7 28 17 .5 26 25 .9 

Area ................................................ 126 .4 11.5 114 .8 10 .5 110 .3 10 .6 

Non-Road Mobile ........................... 99 70.6 80 .1 63 .18 76 .2 62 .13 

On-Road Mobile ............................. 91 .8 179.8 48 .8 111 .3 45 .4 105 .9 

Total ........................................ 362 .6 389.6 271 .7 202 .48 257 .9 204 .53 

3. What Is EPA’s Evaluation? 

Based on EPA review, the 2008 and 

2009 inventories are determined to be 

complete and consistent with EPA 

guidance. A more detailed discussion of 

how the emission inventories were 

reviewed and the results of these 

reviews is provided in the Technical 

Support Document for this action. Since 

the 2009 emission inventory is an 

integral part of the attainment 

demonstration which EPA is not acting 

on at this time, EPA is deferring action 

on the 2009 emission inventory. EPA 

will act on the 2009 projection year 

emission inventory when it acts on the 

attainment demonstration. EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2008 

projection year emission inventories as 

the State used them in developing the 

RFP Plans. 

B. Reasonable Further Progress Plans 

1. What Are the Act Requirements? 

Section 182(b)(1) of the Act and EPA’s 

8-hour ozone implementation rule (40 

CFR 51.910) require each 8-hour ozone 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
2948 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

nonattainment area designated moderate 

and above to submit an emissions 

inventory and RFP Plan, for review and 

approval into its SIP, that describes how 

the area will achieve actual emissions 

reductions of VOC and NOX from a 

baseline emissions inventory. 

The process for determining the 

emissions baseline from which the RFP 

reductions are calculated is described in 

section 182(b)(1) of the Act and 40 CFR 

51.910. This baseline value has been 

determined to be the 2002 adjusted base 

year inventory. Sections 182(b)(1)(B) 

and (D) require the exclusion from the 

base year inventory of emissions 

benefits resulting from the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Control Program 

(FMVCP) regulations promulgated by 

January 1, 1990, and the Reid Vapor 

Pressure (RVP) regulations promulgated 

June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The 

FMVCP and RVP emissions reductions 

are determined by the State using EPA’s 

on-road mobile source emissions 

modeling software, MOBILE6. The 

FMVCP and RVP emission reductions 

are then removed from the base year 

inventory by the State, resulting in an 

adjusted base year inventory. The 

emission reductions needed to satisfy 

the RFP requirement are then calculated 

from the adjusted base year inventory. 

These reductions are then subtracted 

from the adjusted base year inventory to 

establish the emissions target for the 

RFP milestone year (2008). 

For moderate areas like New Jersey’s, 

the Act specifies a 15 percent reduction 

in ozone precursor emissions over an 

initial six year period. In the Phase 2 

Rule, EPA interpreted this requirement 

for areas that were also designated 

nonattainment and classified as 

moderate or higher for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA 

provided that an area classified as 

moderate or higher that has the same 

boundaries as an area, or is entirely 

composed of several areas or portions of 

areas, for which EPA fully approved a 

15 percent plan for the 1-hour NAAQS, 

is considered to have met the 

requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the 

Act for the 8-hour NAAQS. In this 

situation, a moderate nonattainment 

area is subject to RFP under section 

172(c)(2) of the Act and shall submit, no 

later than 3 years after designation for 

the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision that 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.910(b)(2). The RFP SIP must provide 

for a 15 percent emission reduction 

(either NOX and/or VOC) accounting for 

any growth that occurs during the six 

year period following the baseline 

emissions inventory year, that is, 2002– 

2008. The section 182 and 172 

requirements differ in that section 

182(b)(1) specifies that it must be a 15 

percent VOC reduction where section 

172(c)(2) provides that the 15 percent 

reduction can be either a VOC and/or 

NOX reduction. 

2. What Reasonable Further Progress 

Plans Were Included in the SIP? 

New Jersey followed EPA’s 

requirements and guidance in 

calculating the ‘‘adjusted baseline 

inventory,’’ 2008 target level emissions 

and the RFP emission reductions. The 

total emission reductions required to 

meet the 2008 target level in the 

Northern and Southern New Jersey 

Counties are 96.65 tons per day (tpd) 

and 59.96 tpd, respectively. New 

Jersey’s RFP Plans for the Northern and 

Southern New Jersey Counties are 

summarized in Table 3. Based on Table 

3, New Jersey’s VOC control plan for the 

Northern and Southern New Jersey 

Counties meets the 15 percent reduction 

requirements and, in addition, results in 

a 70.15 tpd reduction surplus in the 

Northern New Jersey Counties and a 

30.64 tpd reduction surplus in the 

Southern New Jersey Counties. 

TABLE 3—VOC MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE NEW JERSEY 2008 RFP PLAN

VOC control measures 

Northern NJ 

counties 

(tons per day) 

Southern NJ 

counties 

(tons per day) 

Required Reduction In VOC To Meet 2008 Milestone ............................................................................... 96 .65 59 .96 

Non-Road Mobile Source: 

Portable Fuel Containers 2005 ............................................................................................................ 1 .4 

Non-road Mobile Federal Control Measures ........................................................................................ 45 24 .3 

On-Road Mobile Source: 

Stage II (Gasoline Transfer Operations) .............................................................................................. 1 .3 .8 

Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) I/M ............................................................................................................ 2 .9 1 .6 

Total Federal Control Measures Benefits In Mobile Model .......................................................... 82 .5 48 .0 

Stationary Area Source: 

Autobody (Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing) ........................................................................ 1 .5 .5 

Solvent Cleaning (Degreasing) ............................................................................................................ 2 .4 .8 

Consumer Products 2005 ..................................................................................................................... 3 .6 0 

Portable Fuel Containers (2005 and 2009) .......................................................................................... 2 .6 0 .6 

Stage I (Gasoline Transfer Operations-Balanced Submerged Filling) ................................................ 5 .9 2 .9 

Total VOC Benefits From All Sources .......................................................................................... 148 .7 79 .9 

Reduction Surplus ......................................................................................................................... 52 .05 19 .94 

3. What Is EPA’s Evaluation? 

New Jersey determined the required 

emission reductions for its RFP plan 

consistent with the Act, as interpreted 

in EPA’s regulations, guidance and 

policies. All the measures included in 

the New Jersey RFP Plans have been 

adopted. New Jersey also generated a 

significant amount of NOX reductions 

that could be used for RFP. The 

emission reduction benefits from certain 

measures have been divided between 

the RFP and the contingency measure 

requirements, but are not being double 

counted. Even without these measures, 

the RFP plans contain sufficient 

emission reductions to satisfy the RFP 

requirement, therefore EPA is proposing 

to approve the RFP Plans. 

C. Contingency Measures 

1. What Are the Act Requirements? 

For ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate or above, states 

must include in their submittal 

contingency measures to be 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 2949 

implemented if the area fails to make 

RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date (sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)). Contingency 

measures are additional controls to be 

implemented in the event the area fails 

to meet an RFP or attainment milestone. 

They are intended to achieve reductions 

over and beyond those relied on in the 

RFP and attainment demonstrations. 

The Act does not preclude a state from 

implementing such measures before 

they are triggered. EPA interprets the 

Act to require sufficient contingency 

measures in the submittal, so that upon 

implementation of such measures, 

additional emissions reductions of up to 

three percent of the adjusted base year 

inventory (or a lesser percentage that 

will make up for the identified shortfall) 

would be achieved in the year after the 

failure has been identified. For more 

information on contingency measures 

please see the April 16, 1992 General 

Preamble (57 FR 13512) and the 

November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule (70 FR 

71612). 

2. What Contingency Measures Were 

Included in the SIP? 

The New Jersey SIP includes the 

control measures that will provide 

additional emission reductions should 

the State not achieve the 15 percent RFP 

target in 2008 and/or attainment in 

2010. The 2010 contingency measures 

are not included in the attainment 

demonstration, but since EPA is not 

acting on the attainment demonstration 

in this action, EPA is deferring action on 

the contingency measures for 

attainment. EPA will act on these 

measures when it acts on the attainment 

demonstration. 

Based on the 3 percent reduction 

needed for RFP contingency, and using 

only VOC emission reductions in 2008, 

New Jersey calculated it would need 

18.1 tpd of VOC emission reduction in 

the Northern New Jersey Counties and 

10.7 tpd of VOC emission reduction in 

the Southern New Jersey Counties 

should New Jersey fail to meet RFP. The 

measures and associated emission 

reductions are identified in Table 4 and 

the emission reductions are not relied 

on in the RFP or in the attainment 

demonstration. 

TABLE 4—VOC REDUCTIONS FOR REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS CONTINGENCY MEASURES FOR 2008 

[Ozone season tons per day] 

VOC 

(TPD) 

Northern New Jersey Counties 

Contingency Requirement: 3 percent VOC ....................................................................................................................................... 18 .1 

Control Measures: 

Architectural Coatings 2005 ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 

Consumer Products 2005 ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 .1 

Reductions allocated to RFP contingency ................................................................................................................................. 18 .1 

Southern New Jersey Counties 

Contingency Requirement: 3 percent VOC ....................................................................................................................................... 10 .7 

Control Measures: 

Architectural Coatings 2005 ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 

Consumer Products 2005 ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Portable Fuel Containers 2005 and 2009 .................................................................................................................................. 0 .7 

Reductions allocated to RFP contingency ................................................................................................................................. 10 .7 

3. What Is EPA’s Evaluation? 

New Jersey determined the required 

emission reductions for its RFP 

contingency plans consistent with the 

Act, as interpreted in EPA’s regulations, 

guidance and policies and identified the 

specific measures needed to achieve 

them. All the emission reductions 

included in the RFP contingency plans 

are from adopted measures. EPA is 

proposing to approve the State’s RFP 

contingency plans. 

D. RACT for Stationary Sources 

1. What Are the Act Requirements? 

Sections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2) and 

182(f) of the Act require nonattainment 

areas that are designated as moderate or 

above for ozone to adopt RACT. All of 

New Jersey is subject to this 

requirement since all counties in the 

State are located in either of two 

nonattainment areas that are classified 

as moderate ozone nonattainment areas 

for the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone (40 

CFR 81.331). In accordance with section 

182(b), New Jersey must, at a minimum, 

adopt RACT level controls for sources 

covered by a Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) document and for any 

major non-CTG sources. 

Section IV.G of EPA’s Phase 2 Rule 

discusses the RACT requirements. It 

states, in part, that where a RACT SIP 

is required, SIPs implementing the 8- 

hour standard generally must assure 

that RACT is met, either through a 

certification that previously required 

RACT controls represent RACT for 8- 

hour implementation purposes or, 

where necessary, through a new RACT 

determination. The majority of counties 

in New Jersey were previously classified 

under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as 

severe, while the remaining counties 

were subject to RACT as part of the 

Ozone Transport Region. New Jersey 

chose a uniform applicability level for 

RACT based on the severe classification 

which resulted in a statewide 

requirement for major sources to be 

defined as those having emissions of 25 

tons per year or more for both VOC and 

NOX. In areas classified as moderate, the 

definition for major sources in New 

Jersey would have been 50 tons per year 

for VOC and 100 tons per year for NOX. 

However, New Jersey chose to retain the 

original 1-hour ozone limits statewide 

in New Jersey for purposes of the RACT 

analysis resulting in a more stringent 

evaluation of RACT. New Jersey’s use of 

25 tons per year for RACT is consistent 

with court decision concerning antibacksliding. See South Coast Air 

Quality Management Dist. (SCAQMD) v. 

EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

2. How Did New Jersey Perform Its 

RACT Analysis? 

New Jersey combined the results of 

three separate information gathering 

efforts from industry, environmental 

groups and the general public in order 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
2950 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

to get the greatest input on the 

stringency of the existing requirements 

and the possibility of new RACT 

controls. The first effort was the 

exchange of information and experience 

through a public forum entitled, 

‘‘Reducing Air Pollution Together’’ (a 

multi-pollutant effort), the second was 

through state participation in regional 

control development efforts, and the 

third was an internal NJDEP assessment 

of RACT controls. The internal 

assessment also included a review of 

EPA’s 56 CTGs and Alternative Control 

Techniques (ACTs) where the CTG’s 

and ACT’s level of control and 

applicability were compared to New 

Jersey’s regulations. The results of these 

three efforts were consolidated and 

presented to the NJDEP Air Quality 

Management team for its consideration. 

The Air Quality Management team then 

discussed and prioritized the 

recommendations resulting in a list of 

approximately 60 potential control 

measures for further evaluation. The 

NJDEP’s engineers and scientists were 

assigned the task of further investigating 

and writing white papers for each 

potential control measure. Each control 

measure was evaluated based on 

information collected regarding 

emission benefits, implementation 

issues, cost-effectiveness, and existing 

controls. 

The white papers were then made 

available to the public for its review and 

comment and the evaluated control 

measures were added to the other 

recommended control measures for 

further evaluation. New Jersey’s RACT 

evaluation, ‘‘Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) and other 

Associated State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) Revisions for the Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS), Regional Haze, and 

the Clean Air Act Requirements on 

Transport of Air Pollution’’ dated 

August 1, 2007, addressed 

approximately 115 source categories 

covering multiple pollutants, as well as 

New Jersey’s commitments to adopt 

more stringent controls for the 8-hour 

ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze SIPs 

and was the subject of a public hearing. 

3. What Were the Results of New 

Jersey’s Analysis of RACT for Stationary 

Sources? 

a. CTGs and ACTs 

New Jersey has implemented RACT 

controls statewide for the 56 CTGs and 

ACTs that EPA has issued to meet the 

requirements of the Act. These RACT 

controls were promulgated in the New 

Jersey Administrative Code, Title 7: 

Chapter 27, Air Pollution Control in: 

—Subchapter 16, ‘‘Control and 

Prohibition of Air Pollution by 

Volatile Organic Compounds,’’ 

—Subchapter 19, ‘‘Control and 

Prohibition of Air Pollution from 

Oxides of Nitrogen,’’ and 

—Subchapter 23, ‘‘Prevention of Air 

Pollution From Architectural 

Coatings.’’ 

The New Jersey RACT SIP contains a 

table (see Table 4—RACT 

Determinations Based on Existing 

USEPA Guidance) listing all the CTG 

and ACT categories (56 categories in 

total) and the corresponding Subchapter 

and section which address the 

requirements. These have all been 

approved by EPA and made part of the 

SIP. 

For many source categories, the 

existing New Jersey rules go beyond the 

recommendations contained in the 

CTG/ACT documents in terms of more 

stringent emission rates and lower 

thresholds of applicability. New Jersey 

identified several categories where 

controls may be more stringent and 

these are included in Section D.3.d. 

below. Based on the August 1, 2007 

RACT evaluation, New Jersey’s existing 

RACT rules for the remaining CTG and 

ACT categories met the RACT 

requirement for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS implementation purposes. 

b. Negative Declaration 

By comparing the sources covered in 

the existing CTGs and ACTs with New 

Jersey’s adopted rules, and searching the 

New Jersey Environmental Management 

System permitting and emission 

inventory databases, and emission 

statements for source categories by 

Standard Industrial Code (SIC), New 

Jersey determined that for the following 

CTGs and ACTs, either no sources exist 

in New Jersey, or the sources fall below 

the CTG/ACT applicability thresholds: 

(1) Surface Coating of Automobiles 

and Light-Duty Trucks; 

(2) Manufacture of Vegetable Oils; 

(3) Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber 

Tires; 

(4) Aerospace Coatings; 

(5) Iron and Steel Mills; 

(6) Cement Manufacturing; 

(7) Nitric and Adipic Manufacturing 

Plants; 

(8) Flat Wood Paneling Coatings; and 

(9) Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

Operations. 

New Jersey will review all new CTGs 

issued by EPA since the preparation of 

this SIP revision and adopt provisions 

to address any new requirements for 

those categories for which sources exist 

in the State. This includes those covered 

by the present negative declaration. 

c. Facility-Specific Emission Limits and 

Alternative Emission Limits 

The requirement to review and update 

1-hour ozone RACT SIP limits also 

applies to any uniquely determined 

RACT limits for major stationary 

sources that are located in 

nonattainment areas. In New Jersey, 

uniquely determined RACT limits may 

result from two situations: Where major 

sources are not regulated by a CTG but 

are still required to have controls based 

on its size and on a requirement to 

perform a case-by-case determination 

(facility specific emission limit (FSEL)), 

or where the facility could not 

reasonably meet the RACT limit because 

of site specific factors and applied for an 

alternative emission limit (AEL). In both 

cases the limits are adopted by the State 

and approved into the SIP. 

As part of the 8-hr ozone RACT 

determination, New Jersey is including 

new source categories required to have 

RACT and tightening emission limits for 

some source categories that would be 

applicable to all sources, including 

some which had a FSEL or AEL. At the 

same time, New Jersey is requiring all 

facilities that were previously granted 

FSELs or AELs to now comply with the 

new emission requirements were 

applicable, or obtain a new FSEL if the 

source category still has no specific 

RACT limits in the rule. Should any 

facility not be able to meet the new rule 

requirements, it could apply for a new 

AEL that would be based on the 

facilities abilities to comply with 

current technology and the present cost 

of those controls. 

d. Source Categories Identified for 

Further Control 

The results of NJDEP’s assessment of 

RACT for the CTG and ACT categories, 

non-CTG major sources regulated by the 

State, as well as categories identified by 

the regional and local workgroups are 

identified in Table 5. Table 5 lists the 

RACT source categories for which the 

State will propose new or revised 

emission standards along with the 

targeted pollutants and affected rules 

and categories which will be the subject 

of future rule revisions. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 2951 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF NEW JERSEY CANDIDATE SOURCE CATEGORIES AND FUTURE RULE REVISIONS

Candidate source categories 

Targeted pollutants 

Affected rules 

NOX VOC SO2 PM2.5

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 

Asphalt Paving ........................................................................................... .......... X .......... .......... N.J.A.C.1 7:27–16.19. 

Asphalt Production ..................................................................................... X .......... .......... .......... N.J.A.C. 7:27–19.9. 

Glass Furnaces .......................................................................................... X .......... .......... .......... N.J.A.C. 7:27–19.2, 19.10. 

Industrial Adhesives & Sealants ................................................................ .......... X .......... .......... N.J.A.C. 7:27–26 (New Rule). 

Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Boilers ............................................ X .......... .......... .......... N.J.A.C. 7:27–19.2, 19.7. 

Coal-fired EGU 2 Boilers ............................................................................ X .......... X X N.J.A.C. 7:27–4, 10 & 19.4. 

EGUs ......................................................................................................... X .......... .......... .......... N.J.A.C. 7:27–19.4. 

High Electrical Demand Day EGUs ........................................................... X .......... .......... .......... N.J.A.C. 7:27–19.4, 19.5, & 19.29. 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) 

Petroleum Refineries 4 ............................................................................... X X X .......... N.J.A.C. 7:27–33 (New Rule). 

State of New Jersey 

Petroleum and VOC Storage Tanks .......................................................... .......... X .......... .......... N.J.A.C. 7:27–16.2. 

Facility-Specific Emission Limit & Alternative Emission Limit ................... X X .......... .......... N.J.A.C. 7:27–16.17 & 19.13. 

BART 3-affected Equipment ....................................................................... X .......... X X N.J.A.C. 7:27–33 (New rule). 

Municipal Waste Combustors .................................................................... X .......... .......... .......... N.J.A.C. 7:27–19.12. 

Publicly-owned Treatment Works (sewage sludge incinerators) .............. X .......... .......... .......... N.J.A.C. 7:27–19.28. 

CTGs issued after 2006 4 .......................................................................... .......... X .......... .......... N.J.A.C. 7:27–16.7. 

Process Heaters & Boilers at Petroleum Refineries 4 ............................... X .......... .......... .......... N.J.A.C. 7:27–33 (New Rule). 

1 N.J.A.C.—New Jersey Administrative Code. 

2EGU—Electric Generating Unit. 

3BART—Best Available Retrofit Technology. 

4Future Rule Revisions. 

4. What Is EPA’s Evaluation? 

New Jersey submitted a RACT 

assessment in a SIP revision dated 

August 1, 2007 and supplemented the 

submittal on December 14, 2007. New 

Jersey’s RACT analysis included 56 CTG 

and ACT source categories and over 59 

non-CTG source categories. 

Of those 115 categories New Jersey 

has concluded that the RACT rules 

currently approved into the SIP meet 

the RACT requirement for 102 

categories under the 8-hour ozone 

standard. New Jersey has identified 13 

categories for which it has preliminarily 

determined that new limits should be 

proposed. New Jersey has since 

proposed provisions for all 13 of these 

categories. 

The RACT submission from the State 

of New Jersey consists of: (1) A 

certification that previously adopted 

RACT controls in New Jersey’s SIP for 

101 source categories that were 

approved by EPA under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS are based on the 

currently available technically and 

economically feasible controls, and that 

they continue to represent RACT for the 

8-hour ozone implementation purposes; 

(2) a commitment to adopt new or more 

stringent regulations that represent 

RACT control levels for both specific 

source categories and specific sources; 

and (3) a negative declaration that for 

certain of CTGs and/or ACTs there are 

no sources within New Jersey or that 

there are no sources above the 

applicability thresholds. 

EPA has reviewed the State’s RACT 

analysis and agrees with the State’s 

conclusions. EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve the RACT SIP for 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on New 

Jersey’s commitment to submit adopted 

RACT rules for 13 source categories by 

April 1, 2009. We believe that New 

Jersey will be able to meet this 

commitment because the State has 

already proposed RACT provisions for 

all 13 source categories and has recently 

adopted a rule for one of the source 

categories and the comment period for 

the remaining categories has closed. 

E. RACM Analysis 

1. What Are the Act Requirements? 

Pursuant to section 172(c)(1) of the 

Act, states are required to implement all 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM) as expeditiously as practicable. 

Specifically, section 172(c)(1) states the 

following: ‘‘In general—Such plan 

provisions shall provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology) and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ 

Furthermore, in EPA’s Phase 2 Rule, 

EPA describes how states must include 

with their attainment demonstration a 

RACM analysis (70 FR 71659). The 

purpose of the RACM analysis is to 

determine whether or not reasonably 

available control measures exist that 

would advance the attainment date for 

nonattainment areas. Control measures 

that would advance the attainment date 

are considered RACM and must be 

included in the SIP. RACM are 

necessary to ensure that the attainment 

date is achieved ‘‘as expeditious as 

practicable.’’ 

RACM is defined by the EPA as any 

potential control measure for 

application to point, area, on-road and 

non-road emission source categories 

that meets the following criteria: 

• The control measure is 

technologically feasible 

• The control measure is 

economically feasible 

• The control measure does not cause 

‘‘substantial widespread and long-term 

adverse impacts’’ 

• The control measure is not ‘‘absurd, 

unenforceable, or impracticable’’ 

• The control measure can advance 

the attainment date by at least one year. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
2952 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2 June 2008 was selected as measures would need 

to be implemented by that time in order to advance 

the attainment date. Measures relied on for 

attainment need to be implemented by the 

beginning of the final full ozone season preceding 

the attainment date. Thus, to advance attainment to 

2009, measures would need to be implemented by 

the beginning of the 2008 ozone season. 

2. How Did the State Perform the RACM 

Analysis? 

New Jersey used four separate efforts 

to identify measures that might be 

considered as potential RACM: The 

transportation control measures (TCMs) 

for on-road mobile sources effort, the 

non-TCM measures (point, area and offroad sources) effort, the New Jersey 

workgroup measures effort, and the OTC 

measures effort. 

a. Transportation Control Measures 

The New Jersey Department of 

Transportation (NJDOT), in consultation 

with the NJDEP, identified 26 measures 

to be evaluated as prospective mobile 

source measures that could be 

considered reasonably available control 

measures. After identifying these 

measures, NJDOT analyzed each 

measure for its potential emissions 

reduction benefit, economic impact, 

practicability and potential adverse 

impact. NJDOT analyzed each 

prospective emission control measure 

for each nonattainment area. Eleven 

measures advanced to the final stage of 

the RACM analysis. 

b. Non-TCM Measures (Point, Area and 

Off-Road Sources) 

NJDEP reviewed a variety of sources 

of information, such as, those from 

regional planning organizations, other 

state organizations, existing NJDEP 

documents, EPA regional efforts, and 

‘‘Early Action Compact’’ plans (plans 

developed and implemented by some 

states to avoid being designated 

nonattainment), to develop a list of 457 

potential non-transportation control 

measures (non-TCMs). After focusing on 

those measures with significant VOC 

and NOX emissions and eliminating 

those that were already in place in New 

Jersey and those that are more 

stringently addressed at the Federal 

level, a list of 81 potential non-TCMs 

was advanced to the next phase of the 

analysis and added to the compiled list. 

c. New Jersey Workgroup Measures 

New Jersey organized the ‘‘Reducing 

Air Pollution Together Initiative,’’ 

which brought together over 200 people 

representing various industries, 

environmental and civic groups. Six 

workgroups were formed to develop 

potential control measures for NJDEP 

consideration. A list of 250 potential 

measures was developed and ranked 

and the workgroups prepared ‘‘White 

Papers’’ for 60 measures that passed the 

next round of evaluations. A more 

extensive review followed with 21 

measures being added to the compiled 

list of potential RACM measures. 

d. OTC Measures 

New Jersey worked with the other 

states that are part of the Ozone 

Transport Commission to identify 

regional control measures that would be 

of greater benefit if implemented by all 

the states in the OTC region. Several of 

these control measures were identified 

for adoption and the remaining 

measures were added to the compiled 

list. 

e. Compiled Measures 

NJDEP compiled a list of 103 nonTCM measures [81 from the Non-TCM 

(point, area and off-road sources), 21 

from NJDEP workgroup (white papers), 

and 1 OTC measure] and analyzed these 

measures using the RACM criterion for 

technological feasibility. A total of 85 

measures passed the technological 

feasibility criterion. Table F2.1 in 

Appendix F2 of the State’s SIP includes 

a list of all measures considered and the 

reasons that they passed or failed each 

RACM criterion. If sufficient 

information was not available for a 

technological feasibility determination 

to be made for a measure, the measure 

was evaluated for the remaining criteria, 

and a ‘‘N/A’’ determination was made 

for technological feasibility. The 

remaining 85 measures were analyzed 

for economic feasibility and other local 

factors, such as whether the measure 

could be implemented by June 2008.2 A 

total of 17 non-TCM measures advanced 

to the final stage of analysis. A total of 

28 measures, 11 TCMs and 17 nonTCMs, passed the technological 

feasibility, economic feasibility and 

‘‘other local considerations’’ RACM 

criteria. 

3. What Were the Results of the RACM 

Analysis? 

In order for any measure to advance 

the attainment date of June 2010 to June 

2009, the measures would have to be 

implemented and achieve the emission 

reductions by June 2008. The combined 

emission benefits from VOC and NOX

measures were 15.5 tons/day in the 

Northern New Jersey Counties and 7.4 

tons/day in the Southern New Jersey 

Counties. The State’s analysis 

demonstrated that none of the RACM’s, 

singularly or in combination, will yield 

emissions benefits sufficient to advance 

the 2010 attainment date for the two 

nonattainment areas in which the New 

Jersey counties are located. Regardless, 

the State committed to develop and 

implement five of these measures as 

part of its RACT control program and 

New Jersey has proposed all five of 

these measures for rulemaking. 

4. What Is EPA’s Evaluation? 

New Jersey evaluated all source 

categories that could contribute 

meaningful emission reductions and 

identified and evaluated an extensive 

list of potential control measures. The 

State considered the time needed to 

develop and adopt regulations and the 

time it would take to see the benefit 

from these measures as a further screen 

of their reasonableness and availability. 

The State has proceeded with 

developing several of the measures as 

part of its RACT control program. EPA 

has reviewed the RACM analysis and 

finds that there are no RACM that 

would advance the moderate area 

attainment date of 2010 for the two 

nonattainment areas in which the New 

Jersey counties are located. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

approve New Jersey’s moderate area 

RACM SIP for the two moderate 

nonattainment areas in which New 

Jersey is located. 

F. Conformity Budgets 

1. What Are the Act Requirements? 

The Act requires Federal actions in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas to 

‘‘conform to’’ the goals of SIPs. This 

means that such actions will not: (a) 

Cause or contribute to violations of a 

NAAQS; (b) worsen the severity of an 

existing violation; or (c) delay timely 

attainment of any NAAQS. Actions 

involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with state 

air quality and transportation agencies, 

EPA, and the FHWA and FTA to 

demonstrate that their long range 

transportation plans (‘‘plans’’) and 

transportation improvement programs 

(TIP) conform to applicable SIPs. This is 

typically determined by showing that 

estimated emissions from existing and 

planned highway and transit projects 

are less than or equal to the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (‘‘budgets’’) 

contained in a SIP. The General 

Conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93, 

subpart B) requires actions initiated by 

other Federal agencies in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas to also conform 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 2953 

to the SIP. One option for Federal 

agencies to demonstrate conformity is to 

meet facility-wide emissions budgets 

that are specified in the SIP. New Jersey 

has two major Federal facilities for 

which it has chosen to establish facilitywide emissions budgets. 

2. What Conformity Budgets Were 

Included in the SIP? 

Three MPOs cover New Jersey’s two 

ozone nonattainment areas. New Jersey 

sets budgets per MPO (called ‘‘sub-area 

budgets’’), allowing each MPO to make 

a conformity determination 

independent of the other two on the 

condition that the other MPOs in the 

same nonattainment area have 

conforming plans and TIPs in place 

when the new determination is made. 

Both the Delaware Valley Regional 

Planning Commission (DVRPC) and the 

South Jersey Transportation Planning 

Organization (SJTPO) reside within the 

Southern New Jersey Counties. Twelve 

of the thirteen counties covered by the 

North Jersey Transportation Planning 

Authority (NJTPA) are within the 

Northern New Jersey Counties, while 

one county (Ocean County) is within the 

Southern New Jersey Counties. Since 

conformity is determined on a 

nonattainment area basis, New Jersey is 

designating separate budgets for Ocean 

County and the remaining 12-county 

NJTPA area. As these budgets cover 

separate nonattainment areas, NJTPA 

may not combine the Ocean County 

budget with the 12-county budget to 

make an overall conformity 

determination in the event that one area 

is unable to meet its individual budget; 

however, this does not preclude NJTPA 

from making a positive conformity 

finding in the other area. Table 6 lists 

New Jersey’s submitted budgets. 

TABLE 6—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS SUBMITTED BY NEW JERSEY

[Tons per day] 

MPO 

2008 2009 

VOC NOX VOC NOX

NJTPA (except Ocean County) ....................................................................... 85.38 143.60 79.00 133.39 

NJTPA (Ocean County only) ........................................................................... 6.93 8.69 6.45 12.65 

DVRPC ............................................................................................................ 27.75 69.67 25.98 63.66 

SJTPO ............................................................................................................. 14.14 32.93 13.04 29.64 

Table 7 contains emission budgets for 

McGuire Air Force Base (AFB) and 

Lakehurst Naval Air Station (NAS). 

These budgets were established in 

consultation with the United States Air 

Force and the Navy and will provide 

McGuire AFB and Lakehurst NAS the 

operational flexibility necessary to meet 

their missions and future missions of 

the Department of Defense and allow 

them to meet the requirements of the 

General Conformity regulation. 

TABLE 7—EMISSION BUDGETS FOR MCGUIRE AFB AND LAKEHURST NAS 

Base Year VOC 

(tons/year) 

NOX

(tons/year) 

McGuire AFB ............................................................................................................................... 2008 730 1,534 

2009 730 1,534 

2010 730 1,534 

2011 730 1,534 

Lakehurst NAS ............................................................................................................................. 2008 109 563 

2009 115 639 

2010 122 716 

2011 129 793 

3. What Is EPA’s Evaluation? 

For budgets to be approvable, they 

must meet, at a minimum, EPA’s 

adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). 

EPA made an adequacy determination 

on New Jersey’s 2008 and 2009 budgets 

on July 17, 2008 (73 FR 41068). In our 

Notice of Adequacy we found that the 

budgets were ‘‘clearly identified and 

precisely quantified’’ and were 

‘‘consistent with applicable 

requirements.* * *’’ We also found that 

the budgets were ‘‘consistent with and 

clearly related to the emissions 

inventory and the control measures in 

the submitted control strategy 

implementation plan revision.’’ The 

budgets are identical to the projected 

2008 and 2009 on-road mobile source 

emission inventories. 

When EPA determines that budgets 

are adequate for transportation 

conformity, we note that an adequacy 

finding does not imply that budgets will 

ultimately be approved. In our adequacy 

determination EPA found that the 2009 

budgets demonstrate additional progress 

toward attainment, however, since EPA 

will be taking action on the attainment 

demonstration at a later date, EPA will 

at that time take action on the 2009 

budgets. Consistent with our adequacy 

review of New Jersey’s submittal, EPA is 

proposing to approve New Jersey’s 2008 

budgets associated with the 2008 RFP 

budgets. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the general conformity budgets 

for McGuire AFB and Lakehurst NAS. 

V. What Are EPA’s Conclusions? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

following SIP elements required by the 

Act: 2008 RFP and associated 2008 

ozone projection year emission 

inventories, contingency measures for 

failure to meet the 2008 RFP milestone, 

2008 conformity budgets used for 

planning purposes, moderate area 

RACM analysis, and general conformity 

budgets. 

EPA has reviewed the State’s RACT 

analysis and agrees with the State’s 

conclusions. EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve the RACT 

analysis for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on New Jersey’s commitment to 

submit adopted RACT rules for 13 

source categories by April 1, 2009. We 

believe that New Jersey will be able to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
2954 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

meet this commitment because the State 

has proposed RACT rules for all 13 

source categories and has recently 

adopted a rule for one of these source 

categories. 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve the RACT analysis based on a 

commitment submitted by New Jersey. 

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA 

may conditionally approve a plan based 

on a commitment from the State to 

adopt specific enforceable measures by 

a date certain, but not later than 1 year 

from the date of approval. If EPA 

conditionally approves the commitment 

in a final rulemaking action, the State 

must meet its commitment to adopt the 

identified regulations. If the State fails 

to do so, this action will become a 

disapproval upon the State’s failure to 

meet its commitment. EPA will notify 

the State by letter that this action has 

occurred. If the conditional approval 

converts to a disapproval, the 

commitment will no longer be a part of 

the approved New Jersey SIP. Upon 

notification of the State that the 

conditional approval has converted to a 

disapproval, EPA will publish a notice 

in the Federal Register notifying the 

public that the conditional approval 

automatically converted to a 

disapproval. If the State meets its 

commitment, within the applicable time 

frame, the conditionally approved 

submission will remain a part of the SIP 

until EPA takes final action approving 

or disapproving the new SIP revision. If 

EPA disapproves the RACT SIP 

submittal, such action will start a 

sanctions and FIP clock. If EPA 

approves the submittal, the RACT 

analysis will be fully approved in its 

entirety and will replace the RACT 

conditionally approved into the SIP. 

EPA is not taking action at this time 

on New Jersey’s attainment 

demonstrations for the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island, NYNJ-CT and the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE 8-hour ozone moderate 

nonattainment areas, but will do so in 

a future rulemaking. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of 

nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 29, 2008. 

Alan J. Steinberg, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. E9–944 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0503; FRL–8763–2] 

RIN–2060–AO77 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Allocation of Essential Use Allowances 

for Calendar Year 2009 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to allocate 

essential use allowances for import and 

production of Class I ozone-depleting 

substances (ODSs) for calendar year 

2009. Essential use allowances enable a 

person to obtain controlled Class I ODSs 

as part of an exemption to the regulatory 

ban on the production and import of 

these chemicals, which became effective 

as of January 1, 1996. EPA allocates 

essential use allowances for exempted 

production or import of a specific 

quantity of Class I substances solely for 

the designated essential purpose. The 

proposed allocation in this action is 

63.0 metric tons (MT) of 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for use in 

metered dose inhalers (MDIs) for 2009. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposed rule must be received by the 

EPA Docket on or before February 17, 

2009, unless a public hearing is 

requested. Comments must then be 

received on or before 30 days following 

the public hearing. Any party requesting 

a public hearing must notify the contact 

listed below under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time on January 21, 2009. If 

a hearing is held, it will take place on 

February 2, 2009 at EPA headquarters in 

Washington DC. EPA will post a notice 

on our Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ 

ozone) announcing further information 

on the hearing if it is requested. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0503, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: A-and-R-docket@epa.gov 

• Fax: 202–566–9744 

• Mail: Air Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode 2822T, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS