[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46742-46748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21521]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0101, FRL-9968-91-Region 2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; 
Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46743]]

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for New Jersey's 
enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. New Jersey has made 
several amendments to its I/M program to improve performance of the 
program and has requested that the SIP be revised to include these 
changes. Chief among the amendments the EPA is proposing to approve is 
New Jersey's amendment to its I/M program to discontinue two-speed idle 
tests on model year 1981-1995 light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests 
on pre-1981 model year light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on 
heavy duty gasoline vehicles and gas cap leak testing. In addition, 
heavy duty gasoline vehicles equipped with on-board diagnostics (OBD) 
will be subject to OBD testing with this revision. The EPA is proposing 
approval of this SIP revision because it meets all applicable 
requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's regulations and because 
the revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the 
national ambient air quality standards in the affected area. The 
intended effect of this action is to maintain consistency between the 
State-adopted rules and the federally approved SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-
OAR-2017-0101, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reema Loutan, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 
New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3760, or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c705349485d52126e5959515d7c594c5d125b534a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c589aab0b1a4abeb97a0a0a8a485a0b5a4eba2aab3">[email protected]</span></a>.

Table of Contents

I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background Information
    What are the Clean Air Act requirements for a moderate 8-hr 
ozone nonattainment area?
    History of the Ozone Standard and Area Designations
    Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M Programs
III. What was included in New Jersey's SIP submittal?
IV. What are the I/M performance standard requirements and does New 
Jersey's I/M program satisfy them?
V. What are New Jersey's I/M program benefits?
VI. What are the EPA's conclusions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to approve a revision, submitted by New Jersey 
on September 16, 2016, to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) pertaining to New Jersey's motor vehicle enhanced inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) program. New Jersey provided the EPA with 
documentation on the emission impacts that will result from changes to 
New Jersey's enhanced I/M program including a comparison to the EPA I/M 
performance standard. The revisions submitted by New Jersey include 
discontinuing the two-speed idle tests on model year 1981-1995 light 
duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on pre-1981 model year light duty 
gasoline vehicles, idle tests on heavy duty gasoline vehicles and gas 
cap leak testing; requiring OBD testing for heavy duty gasoline 
vehicles equipped with on-board diagnostics (OBD); requiring 
inspections for commercial vehicles; and requiring that re-inspections 
of all vehicles be performed at New Jersey's decentralized I/M 
facilities.

II. Background Information

    What are the Clean Air Act requirements for a moderate 8-hr ozone 
nonattainment area?

History of the Ozone Standard and Area Designations

    In 1997, the EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per 
million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period. The 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. The 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 23857), the EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country, including the 
State of New Jersey, with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard. These 
actions became effective on June 15, 2004. Then on March 27, 2008 (73 
FR 16436), the EPA revised the level of the 8-hour primary, health-
based standard to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm), to provide 
increased protection for children and other ``at risk'' populations 
against an array of ozone-related adverse health effects such as 
decreased lung function and increased respiratory symptoms.
    The New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long 
Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area is composed of the following 
counties: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, 
Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren. The New Jersey 
portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, Atlantic City, PA-DE-MD-NJ 
nonattainment area is composed of the following counties: Atlantic, 
Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean and 
Salem. All of these counties in both areas were classified as moderate 
or above ozone nonattainment areas under the previous 1-hour ozone 
standard. These designations triggered the requirements under section 
182(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for moderate and above nonattainment 
areas, including a requirement to submit an enhanced motor vehicle I/M 
program.
    CAA section 181(b)(2) requires the EPA Administrator to determine, 
based on an area's design value (which represents air quality in the 
area for the most recent 3-year period) as of an area's attainment 
deadline, whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone 
standard by that date. The statute provides a mechanism by which states 
that meet certain criteria may request and be granted by the EPA 
Administrator a 1-year extension of an area's attainment deadline. The 
CAA also requires that areas that have not attained the standard by 
their attainment deadlines be reclassified to either the next 
``highest'' classification (e.g., marginal to moderate, moderate to

[[Page 46744]]

serious, etc.) or to the classifications applicable to the areas' 
design value.
    Under the original designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in July 
2012, New Jersey was classified as marginal. However, New Jersey failed 
to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable marginal attainment 
deadline of July 20, 2015. Therefore, on May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697), the 
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT was reclassified 
from marginal to moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, with a new 2008 
ozone NAAQS attainment date of July 20, 2018. In that same action, the 
EPA determined that the Philadelphia Area and Southern New Jersey 
qualified for a 1-year extension of its attainment date, as provided in 
section 181(a)(5) of the CAA and interpreted by regulation at 40 CFR 
51.1107, and granted the requested extension. The EPA established the 
new attainment date for the Philadelphia Area as July 20, 2016, to be 
based on ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2013-2015 
monitoring period.

Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance Under CAA 
Section 110(l)

    Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the 
requirements of CAA section 110(l) to be approved by the EPA. Section 
110(l) states:
    The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the 
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), 
or any other applicable requirement of this Act.
    The EPA interprets section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of 
the CAA and to all areas of the country, whether attainment, 
nonattainment, unclassifiable, or maintenance, for one or more of the 
six criteria pollutants. The EPA also interprets section 110(l) to 
require a demonstration addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/
or ambient concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. 
In the absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no 
interference with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under 
section 110(l), the EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to 
substitute equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change 
to a SIP approved program, as long as actual emissions in the air are 
not increased. ``Equivalent'' emissions reductions mean reductions 
which are equal to or greater than those reductions achieved by the 
control measure approved in the active portion of the SIP. In order to 
show that compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, modeling or 
adequate justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent 
reductions must represent actual, new emissions reductions achieved in 
a contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control 
measure, in order to preserve the status quo level of emission in the 
air. In addition to being contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions 
reductions must also be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and 
surplus to be approved into the SIP. See Section V for information on 
the state's 110(l) demonstration and I/M program benefits.

Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M Programs

    The CAA requires certain states to implement an enhanced I/M 
program to detect gasoline-fueled motor vehicles that exhibit excessive 
emissions of certain air pollutants. The enhanced I/M program is 
intended to help states meet federal health-based NAAQS for ozone and 
carbon monoxide by requiring vehicles with excess emissions to have 
their emissions control systems repaired. Section 182 of the CAA 
requires I/M programs in those areas of the nation that are most 
impacted by carbon monoxide and ozone pollution.
    On April 5, 2001, the EPA published in the Federal Register 
``Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements 
Incorporating the On-Board Diagnostics Check'' (66 FR 18156). The 
revised I/M rule requires that electronic checks of the On-Board 
Diagnostics (OBD) system on model year 1996 and newer OBD-equipped 
motor vehicles be conducted as part of states' motor vehicle I/M 
programs. OBD is part of the sophisticated vehicle powertrain 
management system and is designed to detect engine and transmission 
problems that might cause vehicle emissions to exceed allowable limits.
    The OBD system monitors the status of up to 11 emission control 
related subsystems by performing either continuous or periodic 
functional tests of specific components and vehicle conditions. The 
first three testing categories--misfire, fuel trim, and comprehensive 
components--are continuous, while the remaining eight only run after a 
certain set of conditions has been met. The algorithms for running 
these eight periodic monitors are unique to each manufacturer and 
involve such things as ambient temperature as well as driving 
conditions. Most vehicles will have at least five of the eight 
remaining monitors (catalyst, evaporative system, oxygen sensor, heated 
oxygen sensor, and exhaust gas recirculation or EGR system) while the 
remaining three (air conditioning, secondary air, and heated catalyst) 
are not necessarily applicable to all vehicles. When a vehicle is 
scanned at an OBD-I/M test site, these monitors can appear as either 
``ready'' (meaning the monitor in question has been evaluated), ``not 
ready'' (meaning the monitor has not yet been evaluated), or ``not 
applicable'' (meaning the vehicle is not equipped with the component 
monitor in question).
    The OBD system is also designed to fully evaluate the vehicle 
emissions control system. If the OBD system detects a problem that may 
cause vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times the Federal Test Procedure 
standards, then the Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) or Check Engine 
Light, is illuminated. By turning on the MIL, the OBD system notifies 
the vehicle operator that an emission-related fault has been detected, 
and the vehicle should be repaired as soon as possible, thus reducing 
the harmful emissions contributed by that vehicle.
    The EPA's revised OBD I/M rule applies to only those areas that are 
required to implement I/M programs under the CAA, which includes the 
aforementioned counties in New Jersey. This rule established a deadline 
of January 1, 2002 for states to begin performing OBD checks on 1996 
and newer model OBD-equipped vehicles and to require repairs to be 
performed on those vehicles with malfunctions identified by the OBD 
check.
    New Jersey is required to have an enhanced I/M program pursuant to 
the CAA, and consequently has adopted, and has been implementing an 
enhanced I/M program statewide since December 13, 1999. On January 22, 
2002, (67 FR 2811), the EPA fully approved New Jersey's enhanced I/M 
program and the State's performance standard modeling as meeting the 
applicable requirements of the CAA. Additional information on the EPA's 
final approval of New Jersey's enhanced I/M program can be found in the 
EPA's January 22, 2002, final approval notice.

III. What was included in New Jersey's SIP submittal?

    On September 16, 2016, New Jersey submitted a revision to the State 
of New Jersey's I/M program SIP. The submittal consists of new rules 
and rule amendments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental 
Protection's rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-14, 7:27-15, 7:27A-3, 7:27B-4, 
7:27B-5 and the Motor Vehicle Commission rules at N.J.A.C. 13:20-7.1 
through 7.6, 13:20-

[[Page 46745]]

26.12 and 26.16, 13:20-32.1 through 32.49, 13:20-33.1 through 33.50, 
Appendix C, N.J.A.C 13:20-43.1, 43.2 and 43.2A, 43.4 through 43.8, 
43.14, 43.16, and N.J.A.C 13:20-44.2, 44.3 and 44.10.
    The changes to New Jersey's I/M program include the elimination of 
exhaust emission tests or tailpipe testing for all gasoline motor 
vehicles. OBD testing will be required for all vehicles, including 
heavy duty gasoline vehicles, subject to inspection and required by the 
EPA to be equipped with an OBD system. The two-speed idle tests on 
model year 1981-1995 light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on pre-
1981 model year light duty gasoline vehicles and idle tests on heavy 
duty gasoline vehicles will be discontinued.
    The changes to New Jersey's I/M program also include procedures for 
diesel exhaust after-treatment checks, standards for fuel leak checks 
and replacement of the fuel cap leak test for gasoline-fueled vehicles 
with a visual gas cap check to ensure that the gas cap is present. NJ 
also submitted amendments to rules related to inspection requirements 
and inspection procedures. For heavy-duty diesel powered vehicles, New 
Jersey is repealing the rolling acceleration smoke opacity test, and 
the power brake smoke opacity test, and retaining only the snap 
acceleration smoke opacity test.
    Enforcement related amendments include authorizing inspectors of 
both gasoline-fueled and diesel-powered motor vehicles to fail a 
vehicle if it is determined that there has been tampering with the 
vehicle's emission controls. The New Jersey Department of Environmental 
Protection may also impose penalties for tampering with emission 
controls on diesel vehicles. The New Jersey Diesel Emission Inspection 
Center inspection forms will be replaced with daily electronic 
reporting of diesel inspections, and private inspection facilities will 
submit diesel inspection information through an electronic portal or 
workstation.
    New Jersey provided documentation on the emission impacts that will 
result from proposed changes to New Jersey's I/M program, including a 
comparison to the EPA I/M performance standard.

IV. What are the I/M performance standard requirements and does New 
Jersey's I/M program satisfy them?

    As part of its final rule for I/M requirements, the EPA established 
a ``model'' program for areas that were required to implement enhanced 
I/M programs. This model program is termed by the EPA as the ``I/M 
performance standard'' and is defined by a specific set of program 
elements. The purpose of the performance standard is to provide a gauge 
by which the EPA can evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of each 
state's enhanced I/M program. As such, states are required to 
demonstrate that their enhanced I/M programs achieve applicable area-
wide emission levels for the pollutants of interest that are equal to, 
or lower than, those which would be realized by the implementation of 
the model program.
    Originally, the EPA only designed one enhanced performance 
standard, as specified at 40 CFR 51.351, and required all enhanced I/M 
program areas to meet or exceed that standard. However, on September 
18, 1995, the EPA promulgated the ``low'' enhanced performance 
standard. The low enhanced performance standard is a less stringent 
enhanced I/M performance standard established for those areas that have 
an approved SIP for Rate of Progress (ROP) for 1996, and do not have a 
disapproved plan for ROP for the period after 1996 or a disapproved 
plan for attainment of the air quality standards for ozone or carbon 
monoxide. New Jersey is currently demonstrating compliance with the CAA 
requirements for ROP and attainment and can therefore use the ``low'' 
enhanced performance standard. The revised performance standard 
modeling included as part of New Jersey's submittal is designed to show 
attainment of the low enhanced performance standard.
    In accordance with the EPA's final rule for I/M requirements (40 
CFR part 51, subpart S), a state must design and implement its enhanced 
I/M program such that it meets or exceeds a minimum performance 
standard. The performance standard is expressed as average grams per 
mile (gpm) or tons per day emission levels from area-wide highway 
mobile sources as a result of the enhanced I/M program. Areas must meet 
the performance standard for the pollutants that cause them to be 
subject to the enhanced I/M requirements. New Jersey was required to 
implement its enhanced I/M program because of its non-attainment status 
for two criteria air pollutants, ozone (of which volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>) are 
precursors) and carbon monoxide.
    The EPA's final rule on I/M requirements also requires that the 
equivalency of the emission levels achieved by the state's enhanced I/M 
program design compared to those of the performance standard must be 
demonstrated using the most current version of the EPA's mobile source 
emission model. The model New Jersey utilized in its analysis was 
MOVES2014, which was the most current version of the EPA's mobile 
source emission model at the time the SIP revisions were submitted.
    Table 1 below compares the Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standards 
with New Jersey's existing and proposed enhanced I/M programs.

                     Table 1--Performance Standard and New Jersey's Enhanced Program Designs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Low enhanced        New Jersey's existing       New Jersey's new
           Program element               performance standard     enhanced I/M program    enhanced  I/M program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Type.........................  100% centralized.......  hybrid--70%,             hybrid--70%,
                                                                 centralized/30%,         centralized/30%,
                                                                 decentralized.           decentralized.
Program Start Date...................  1983...................  1974...................  1974.
Regulatory Class Coverage for Source   100%, 94%, 88%.........  100%...................  100%, 97.0%, 94.0%.
 types: 21, 31 and 32 \1\.
Overall I/M Program Effectiveness for  93.12%, 87.53%, 81.95%.  96%....................  96.00%, 93.12%, 90.24%.
 Source types: 21, 31 and 32 \2\.
Test Frequency.......................  Annual.................  Biennial...............  Biennial.
New Vehicle Exemption................  None...................  5 Years................  5 Years.
Model Year (MY) Coverage.............  1968 and later MY......  all vehicles not         1996 and later MY
                                                                 specifically exempt.

[[Page 46746]]

 
Vehicle Type Coverage................  All light-duty gasoline- All gasoline-fueled      All gasoline-fueled
                                        fueled vehicles and      vehicles and trucks      vehicles and trucks
                                        trucks (up to 8,500      (both light and heavy    except non-OBD
                                        lbs. GVWR).              duty vehicles).          equipped vehicles
                                                                                          greater than 8,500
                                                                                          lbs. GVWR.
Exhaust Emission Test................  Idle--1968-2050 MY.....  OBD--1996 and later MY   OBD--1996 and later MY.
                                                                 beginning 6/1/03, Two-
                                                                 Speed Idle--1981-1995
                                                                 MY, Idle--pre-1981 and
                                                                 HDGVs.
Evaporative System Function Checks...  N/A....................  Gas Cap Testing--1971--  None.
                                                                 2000 MY inclusive
                                                                 (beginning calendar
                                                                 year 1998).
Waiver Rate..........................  3%.....................  0%.....................  0%.
Compliance Rate......................  96%....................  96%....................  96%.
Evaluation Date......................  July 2018..............  July 2018..............  July 2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I/M programs are designed and implemented to meet or exceed an 
applicable minimum federal performance standard. To determine whether a 
state's proposed program is projected to meet or exceed the relevant 
performance standard specified in 40 CFR 51.351, the state performed 
three modeling scenarios: \3\ A no-I/M case, the proposed program, and 
the applicable I/M performance standard. More conventionally, 
performance standards are expressed as emission reductions, as compared 
to a no I/M scenario. The performance standard emission results will 
vary for each state due to the use of state-specific inputs such as 
registration distribution and fuel types. I/M jurisdictions are allowed 
to adopt alternate design features other than the EPA's ``model'' 
inputs and must show compliance with the applicable performance 
standard for the pollutant(s) that established I/M requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Source Types included are: 21--passenger vehicles; 31--
passenger trucks; 32--light commercial trucks.
    \2\ Overall I/M Program effectiveness is calculated as follows: 
Compliance Factor = percent compliance rate x (100-percent waiver 
rate) x regulatory class coverage adjustment.
    \3\ Information on the three modeling scenarios can be found at 
Performance Standard Modeling for New and Existing Vehicle 
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES Mobile 
Source Emissions Model, EPA-420-B-14-006, January 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to complete its performance standard and program 
evaluation modeling, New Jersey used the parameters and assumptions 
shown previously in Table 1, as well as the assumption and values in 
Table 2.

                      Table 2--Modeling Assumptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Value used for average summer
          Modeling parameters                   runs (VOC and NOX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Temperature (F)................  83.4.
Minimum Temperature (F)................  63.8.
Relative Humidity range (%)............  50-86.8.
Activity Inputs (VMT, Speed Age          New Jersey USEPA EIS MOVES
 Distributions, Vehicle Populations,      Inputs for 2018.
 etc.).
Early NLEV and NJ Low Emission Vehicle   Yes.
 Program without ZEV Mandate.
Fuel Specifications....................  MOVES Defaults.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 shows the emissions reduction results from modeling the New 
Jersey I/M program compared to the EPA low enhanced performance 
standard. The emissions reductions achieved under New Jersey's new 
proposed I/M program meet or exceed those achieved under the 
performance standards.

       Table 3--Low Enhanced Performance Standard Modeling Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Carbon
              Program type                   VOC + NOX       monoxide
                                            (tons/day)      (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USEPA Low Enhanced Performance Standard            160.3           853.1
 (2002).................................
New Jersey, No I/M Program (2018).......           163.7           935.6
New Jersey Proposed I/M Program (2018)..           153.4           829.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Jersey has demonstrated that the changes to their enhanced I/M 
program will meet the performance standard requirements and will 
therefore continue to achieve emission reductions necessary to attain 
and maintain the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. Specifically, New 
Jersey's modeling of the proposed I/M program resulted in

[[Page 46747]]

emission reductions of 153.4 tons per day VOC and NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
829.1 tons/day CO which exceeds EPA's performance standards of 160.3 
tons/day VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> and 853.1 tons/day CO.

EPA's Evaluation

    The EPA has reviewed New Jersey's changes to its enhanced I/M 
program that differ from the previous Federally approved program and 
has determined that those changes meet relevant performance standards 
and are therefore approvable into the SIP. The EPA will continue to 
evaluate New Jersey's enhanced I/M program effectiveness through the 
annual and biennial reports submitted by New Jersey in accordance with 
40 CFR 51.366, ``Data Analysis and Reporting.''

V. What are New Jersey's I/M program benefits?

    For SIP revisions that will or could potentially lead to a change 
in emissions or ambient concentrations of a pollutant or its 
precursors, the section 110(l) demonstration should address all 
pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as 
a result of the SIP revision. As indicated in Table 4, the I/M Program 
Benefits modeling performed by New Jersey and verified by the EPA shows 
an emissions reduction benefit shortfall of 2 tons per day between New 
Jersey's existing and new enhanced I/M programs for ozone precursors 
(VOCs and NO<INF>X</INF>), and 11.4 tons per day for carbon monoxide. 
Shortfall is a term of art that means there are lower projected 
benefits than what is currently in place. New Jersey needs to ``make 
up'' for this decrease in projected emission reductions resulting from 
the changes being made to the I/M program through the application of 
programs not already included in the 8-hour ozone SIP. The decrease in 
projected emission reductions from the changes in the I/M program is 
calculated by running the MOVES2014 model for both the existing and 
proposed new I/M programs for the evaluation year of 2018. New Jersey 
addresses the emissions benefit shortfall by using a portion of the 
emission benefits from the New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle Program 
(NJLEV). The emission benefits from the NJLEV program are quantified by 
additional MOVES2014 modeling that include scenarios with and without 
NJLEV inputs. The difference in emissions between these MOVES2014 
scenarios represents the estimates of the NJLEV emission benefits. The 
emission reduction benefits from the NJLEV program are considered 
contemporaneous because a new phase of the NJLEV rules began in 2015 to 
incorporate more stringent evaporative and emissions standards. New 
vehicles sold in New Jersey are meeting these more stringent NJLEV 
rules ahead of EPA Tier 3 standards which are equivalent to NJLEV. 
Additional control measures and strategies that New Jersey is relying 
on to further improve air quality are:

Control of Petroleum Storage Tanks (N.J.A.C 7:27-16.2)
Electric Generating Rule (N.J.A.C 7:27-4.2, 10.2, 19.4)
Portable fuel Containers (N.J.A.C 7:27-24)
Voluntary Retrofits of Ferries (DERA/CMAQ Grants)
Phase 2 HEDD Rule for Electric Generating Units (N.J.A.C 7:27-19.29)
Continuation of the I/M Program for Diesel Vehicles (N.J.A.C 7:27-
14)

    A summary of the I/M Program benefits modeling results is found in 
Table 4.

 Table 4--I/M Program Benefits Modeling Results--Based on 2018 Statewide
                          Onroad Emission Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Emission
                                             Emission       reductions
             Model scenario                 reductions,       carbon
                                             VOC + NOX       monoxide
                                            (tons/day)      (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. New Jersey Existing I/M Program                 154.0           867.2
 Without the NJLEV Program..............
B. New Jersey Proposed I/M Program                 156.0           878.6
 Without the NJLEV Program..............
C. New Jersey Proposed I/M Program with            153.4           829.1
 NJLEV Program..........................
D. NJLEV Benefits for 2009 Model Year                0.3             5.1
 That Were Claimed in a Previous Ozone
 Attainment Demonstration SIP...........
E. SIP Emission Benefits Shortfall (From             2.0            11.4
 I/M Program Changes) (B-A).............
F. NJLEV Benefits (B-C).................             2.6            49.5
G. NJLEV Benefits Not Previously Claimed             2.3            44.4
 (F-D)..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA's Evaluation

    Based on the above discussion and the state's 110(l) demonstration, 
EPA believes that the changes to the New Jersey's I/M program will not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in either 
the Northern or Southern New Jersey nonattainment areas and would not 
interfere with any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and thus, 
are approvable under CAA section 110(l).

VI. What are the EPA's conclusions?

    The EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that New 
Jersey has revised its I/M program in accordance with the requirements 
of the CAA, 40 CFR part 51 and all of the EPA's technical requirements 
for an approvable Enhanced I/M program. The EPA is proposing to approve 
the rules and rule amendments to the New Jersey Department of 
Environmental Protection's rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-14, 7:27-15, 7:27A-3, 
7:27B-4, 7:27B-5 and the Motor Vehicle Commission rules at N.J.A.C. 
13:20-7.1 through 7.6, 13:20-26.12 and 26.16, 13:20-32.1 through 32.49, 
13:20-33.1 through 33.50, Appendix C, N.J.A.C 13:20-43.1, 43.2 and 
43.2A, 43.4 through 43.8, 43.14, 43.16, and N.J.A.C 13:20-44.2, 44.3 
and 44.10. The CAA gives states the discretion in program planning to 
implement programs of the state's choosing as long as necessary 
emission reductions are met.

VII. 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, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this 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 action:
    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under

[[Page 46748]]

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
    <bullet> does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> does not provide the 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 the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 6, 2017.
Catherine R. McCabe,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2017-21521 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>