46742 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tracey Casburn, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

(913) 551–7016, or by email at 

casburn.tracey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document proposes to take action on the 

State of Missouri Infrastructure SIP 

revision for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

We have published a direct final rule 

approving the State’s SIP revision (s) in 

the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

this Federal Register, because we view 

this as a noncontroversial action and 

anticipate no relevant adverse comment. 

We have explained our reasons for this 

action in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. If we receive no adverse comment, 

we will not take further action on this 

proposed rule. If we receive adverse 

comment, we will withdraw the direct 

final rule and it will not take effect. We 

would address all public comments in 

any subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. We do not intend to 

institute a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the ADDRESSES

section of this document. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Volatile organic 

carbon, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 21, 2017. 

Cathy Stepp, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21525 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0515; FRL–9968–79– 

Region 7] 

Approval of Missouri Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Infrastructure 

SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision from the State of Missouri 

for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). Section 110 of the CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

new or revised NAAQS promulgated by 

EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred 

to as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, we are approving the 

state’s SIP revisions as a direct final rule 

without a prior proposed rule. If we 

receive no adverse comment, we will 

not take further action on this proposed 

rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

November 6, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2017–0515, to 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 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tracey Casburn, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

(913) 551–7016, or by email at 

casburn.tracey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document proposes to take action on the 

State of Missouri Infrastructure SIP 

revision for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. We 

have published a direct final rule 

approving the State’s SIP revision(s) in 

the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

this Federal Register, because we view 

this as a noncontroversial action and 

anticipate no relevant adverse comment. 

We have explained our reasons for this 

action in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. If we receive no adverse comment, 

we will not take further action on this 

proposed rule. If we receive adverse 

comment, we will withdraw the direct 

final rule and it will not take effect. We 

would address all public comments in 

any subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. We do not intend to 

institute a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the ADDRESSES

section of this document. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: September 21, 2017. 

Cathy Stepp, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21529 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 Stateadopted 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 Loutan.Reema@epa.gov. 

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 pre1981 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 healthbased 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 preexisting 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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
46744 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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– 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 (NOX) 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

Program element Low enhanced performance 

standard 

New Jersey’s existing enhanced 

I/M program 

New Jersey’s new enhanced 

I/M program 

Network Type ................................. 100% centralized .......................... hybrid—70%, centralized/30%, 

decentralized.

hybrid—70%, centralized/30%, 

decentralized. 

Program Start Date ........................ 1983 .............................................. 1974 .............................................. 1974. 

Regulatory Class Coverage for 

Source types: 21, 31 and 32 1.

100%, 94%, 88% .......................... 100% ............................................. 100%, 97.0%, 94.0%. 

Overall I/M Program Effectiveness 

for Source types: 21, 31 and 

32 2.

93.12%, 87.53%, 81.95% ............. 96% ............................................... 96.00%, 93.12%, 90.24%. 

Test Frequency .............................. Annual ........................................... Biennial ......................................... Biennial. 

New Vehicle Exemption ................. None ............................................. 5 Years ......................................... 5 Years. 

Model Year (MY) Coverage ........... 1968 and later MY ........................ all vehicles not specifically exempt.1996 and later MY 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
46746 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

1Source Types included are: 21—passenger 

vehicles; 31—passenger trucks; 32—light 

commercial trucks. 

2Overall I/M Program effectiveness is calculated 

as follows: Compliance Factor = percent 

compliance rate × (100¥percent waiver rate) × 

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. 

TABLE 1—PERFORMANCE STANDARD AND NEW JERSEY’S ENHANCED PROGRAM DESIGNS—Continued 

Program element Low enhanced performance 

standard 

New Jersey’s existing enhanced 

I/M program 

New Jersey’s new enhanced 

I/M program 

Vehicle Type Coverage ................. All light-duty gasoline-fueled vehicles and trucks (up to 8,500 lbs. 

GVWR).

All gasoline-fueled vehicles and 

trucks (both light and heavy 

duty vehicles).

All gasoline-fueled vehicles and 

trucks except non-OBD 

equipped vehicles greater than 

8,500 lbs. GVWR. 

Exhaust Emission Test .................. Idle—1968–2050 MY .................... OBD—1996 and later MY beginning 6/1/03, Two-Speed Idle— 

1981–1995 MY, Idle—pre-1981 

and HDGVs.

OBD—1996 and later MY. 

Evaporative System Function 

Checks.

N/A ................................................ Gas Cap Testing—1971—2000 

MY inclusive (beginning calendar year 1998).

None. 

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. 

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

Modeling parameters Value used for average summer 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 Distributions, Vehicle Populations, 

etc.).

New Jersey USEPA EIS MOVES Inputs for 2018. 

Early NLEV and NJ Low Emission Vehicle Program without ZEV Mandate.Yes. 

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

Program type VOC + NOX

(tons/day) 

Carbon 

monoxide 

(tons/day) 

USEPA Low Enhanced Performance Standard (2002) .......................................................................................... 160.3 853.1 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46747 

emission reductions of 153.4 tons per 

day VOC and NOX, and 829.1 tons/day 

CO which exceeds EPA’s performance 

standards of 160.3 tons/day VOC and 

NOX 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 NOX), 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

Model scenario 

Emission 

reductions, 

VOC + NOX

(tons/day) 

Emission 

reductions 

carbon 

monoxide 

(tons/day) 

A. New Jersey Existing I/M Program Without the NJLEV Program ....................................................................... 154.0 867.2 

B. New Jersey Proposed I/M Program Without the NJLEV Program ..................................................................... 156.0 878.6 

C. New Jersey Proposed I/M Program with NJLEV Program ................................................................................ 153.4 829.1 

D. NJLEV Benefits for 2009 Model Year That Were Claimed in a Previous Ozone Attainment Demonstration 

SIP ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.3 5.1 

E. SIP Emission Benefits Shortfall (From I/M Program Changes) (B–A) ............................................................... 2.0 11.4 

F. NJLEV Benefits (B–C) ......................................................................................................................................... 2.6 49.5 

G. NJLEV Benefits Not Previously Claimed (F–D) ................................................................................................. 2.3 44.4 

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: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
46748 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BB46 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 6-Month Extension of Final 

Determination on the Proposed 

Threatened Status for the Louisiana 

Pinesnake 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

6-month extension of the final 

determination of whether to list the 

Louisiana pinesnake (Pituophis 

ruthveni) as a threatened species. We 

also reopen the comment period on the 

proposed rule to list the species for an 

additional 30 days. We are taking this 

action based on substantial 

disagreement regarding available 

information related to the interpretation 

of the available survey data used to 

determine the Louisiana pinesnake’s 

status and trends. Comments previously 

submitted need not be resubmitted as 

they are already incorporated into the 

public record and will be fully 

considered in the final rule. We will 

submit a final listing determination to 

the Federal Register for publication on 

or before April 6, 2018. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published October 6, 

2016 (81 FR 69454), is reopened. We 

will accept comments received or 

postmarked on or before November 6, 

2017. If you comment using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES), 

you must submit your comments by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. 

ADDRESSES: Document availability: You 

may obtain copies of the proposed rule 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121. Copies of the 

proposed rule are also available at 

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ 

lafayette/. 

Comment submission: You may 

submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the docket number for this 

proposed rule, which is FWS–R4–ES– 

2016–0121. Then click on the Search 

button. You may submit a comment by 

clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ Please 

ensure that you have found the correct 

rulemaking before submitting your 

comment. 

2. U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 

Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Ranson, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana 

Ecological Services Office, 646 

Cajundome Blvd., Suite 400, Lafayette, 

LA; telephone 337–291–3101. Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 6, 2016 (81 FR 69454), we 

published under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), a proposed rule 

to add the Louisiana pinesnake as a 

threatened species to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (50 CFR 17.11(h)). That 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS