Document ID: EPA-R02-OAR-2011-0686-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: New Jersey; Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program
Posted Date: 2011-09-16T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57691-57696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23862]

[[Page 57691]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2011-0686, FRL-9465-8]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action 
on a proposed 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 EPA is proposing to approve 
is New Jersey's amendment to its I/M program to establish a new exhaust 
emission test for gasoline fueled vehicles and the extension of the new 
vehicle inspection exemption from 4 years to 5 years. EPA is proposing 
approval of this SIP revision because it meets all applicable 
requirements of the Clean Air Act and 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 October 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
R02-OAR-2011-0686, 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 ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2011-0686. 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, 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: Jenna Salomone, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 
New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3741, salomone.jenna@epa.gov.

Table of Contents

I. What action is 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 Proposed SIP submittal?
IV. What are the I/M performance standard requirements and does New 
Jersey's I/M program satisfy them?
V. Does New Jersey demonstrate noninterference with attainment and 
maintenance under section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act?
VI. What are EPA's conclusions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision, submitted by New Jersey on 
December 15, 2009, and a supplemental revision, submitted by New Jersey 
on October 12, 2010, 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 EPA with documentation 
on the emission impacts that will result from proposed 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 a 
new exhaust emission test for gasoline fueled vehicles; the extension 
of the new vehicle inspection exemption from 4 years to 5 years; the 
elimination of repair cost waivers; the increase in the inspection 
frequency (to annual) for certain classes of commercial vehicles such 
as limousines, taxis and jitneys; and the subjecting of light duty 
diesel vehicles to emissions testing.

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, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) 
averaged over

[[Page 57692]]

an 8-hour period. 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 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. In addition, 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. These counties were classified as moderate or above 
ozone nonattainment areas under the pre-existing 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.

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, 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. 
OBD is the subject of this proposed rulemaking action.
    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) 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.
    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.
    EPA's revised I/M rule also permitted, under certain circumstances, 
for states to delay implementation of OBD testing. If the state makes a 
request to show cause to EPA for a delay, an extension of the deadline 
for states to begin conducting mandatory OBD is permissible. The 
revised implementation date represents ``the best the state can 
reasonably do'' (66 FR 18159). EPA's final rule identifies factors that 
may serve as a possible justification for states considering making a 
request to the EPA to delay implementation of OBD I/M program checks 
beyond the January 2002 deadline. Potential factors justifying such a 
delay include contractual impediments, hardware or software 
deficiencies, data management software deficiencies, the need for 
additional training for the testing and repair industries, and the need 
for public education or outreach.
    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. In the January 
22, 2002 Federal Register, (67 FR 2811), 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 EPA's final approval of New Jersey's enhanced I/M 
program can be found in EPA's January 22, 2002 final approval notice.

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

    On December 15, 2009, 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. 7:27-15, 7:27B-5 and the Motor Vehicle 
Commission rules at N.J.A.C. 13:20-7, 13:20-24, 13:20-26, 13:20-28, 
13:20-29, 13:20-32, 13:20-33, 13:20-43, 13:20-44, 13:20-45, and 
N.J.A.C. 13:21-15.8 and 13:21-15.12.
    The proposed changes to New Jersey's I/M program include the 
establishment of a new exhaust emission test for gasoline fueled 
vehicles. The Two Speed Idle (TSI) test will replace both the 
Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM5015) and 2500 Revolutions per Minute 
(RPM) tests. The TSI test is a tailpipe test which checks the vehicle's 
HC, CO, O2 and CO2 exhaust emissions 
concentration levels at two different engine speeds, the regular idle 
and a fast idle around 2500 RPM. The ASM5015

[[Page 57693]]

test measures the concentrations of HC, CO and NOX, in a 
vehicle's tailpipe emissions when a vehicle is running under marginal 
load and at a steady rate or RPM. The 2500 RPM test is a tailpipe test 
that checks the vehicle's HC, CO, O2 and CO2 
exhaust emissions concentration levels at 2500 RPM.
    The proposed changes to New Jersey's I/M program also include: the 
elimination of repair cost waivers, the increase in the inspection 
frequency (to annual) for certain classes of commercial vehicles such 
as limousines, taxis and jitneys, and the subjecting of light duty 
diesel vehicles to emissions testing. 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.
    On October 12, 2010, New Jersey submitted a supplemental I/M 
program SIP revision which consisted of amendments to chapter 8 of 
Title 39 of the Revised Statutes of the state of New Jersey at R.S. 
39:8-1, 39:8-2, and 39:8-3. The submittal includes an extension of the 
new vehicle inspection exemption from 4 years to 5 years and an 
acknowledgement with supporting justification that New Jersey's 
decentralized I/M network (the private inspection facilities, or PIFs) 
is currently 96 percent as effective as New Jersey's centralized I/M 
network (the centralized inspection facilities, or CIFs). PIFs were 
previously assumed to be 80 percent as effective as CIFs, which New 
Jersey considered to likely be very conservative in light of the 
program and technology changes that were implemented in the years 
following the 80 percent effectiveness assumption. In May 2010, New 
Jersey authorized MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. to assess 
improvements in effectiveness of the decentralized program and to 
determine a reasonable effectiveness fraction that may be supported by 
data and technical reasoning. MACTEC analyzed the effectiveness of the 
decentralized PIF network relative to the CIF (centralized) network. 
The relative effectiveness of PIFs was based on data collected from 
PIFs and CIFs in 2009. As a result of the analysis, MACTEC determined 
that New Jersey should increase the effectiveness factor for PIFs and 
provided the following justifications:
     Fail rates for OBD inspections in PIFs were found to be 
nearly identical to those in CIFs;
     An analysis of triggers for OBD tests performed in 2009 
showed that over 99% of inspections in PIFs have no indications of 
fraud;
     New Jersey has implemented several additional OBD triggers 
in the new program, which will further reduce the incidence of fraud.
    New Jersey submitted to EPA the final report prepared by MACTEC 
dated June 23, 2010 entitled ``New Jersey Motor Vehicle Inspection 
Program PIF Effectiveness Study.''

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

    As part of its final rule for I/M requirements, EPA established a 
``model'' program for areas that were required to implement enhanced I/
M programs. This model program is termed by 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 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. EPA allows for a margin of error of +/- 0.02 grams 
per mile (gpm) in determining compliance with the performance standard.
    Originally, 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, 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 is therefore now only required 
to meet the ``low'' enhanced performance standard. The revised 
performance standard modeling included as part of this submittal is 
designed to show attainment of the low enhanced performance standard.
    In accordance with the EPA's final rule for I/M requirements, a 
state must design and implement its enhanced I/M program such that it 
meets or exceeds, within +/- 0.02 gpm, a minimum performance standard. 
The performance standard is expressed as average gpm 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.
    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 EPA's mobile source 
emission model. New Jersey utilized MOBILE 6.2.03 (dated September 24, 
2003) in its analysis, which was the most current version at the time 
the SIP revisions were submitted.
    Table 1 below compares the Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standards 
with both 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 proposed
           Program element               performance standard    enhanced  I/M program    enhanced  I/M program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Type.........................  100% centralized.......  hybrid--70% centralized/ hybrid--70% centralized/
                                                                 30% decentralized.       30% decentralized.
Credit Assumed for Decentralized       NA.....................  80%....................  96% .\1\
 Program.
Program Start Date...................  1983 \2\...............  1974...................  1974.
Test Frequency.......................  Annual.................  Biennial...............  Biennial.
New Vehicle Exemption................  None...................  4 Years................  5 Years.

[[Page 57694]]

 
Emission Standards...................  Those specified at 40    Initial ASM5015 exhaust  Two-Speed Idle
                                        CFR Part 85, Subpart W.  emission standards.      Standards of 1.2% for
                                                                                          carbon monoxide and
                                                                                          220ppm for HC.
Model Year (MY) Coverage.............  1968 and later MY......  All vehicles not         All vehicles not
                                                                 specifically exempt.     specifically exempt.
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    (both light and heavy
                                        lbs. GVWR).              duty vehicles).          duty vehicles).
Exhaust Emission Test................  Idle--1968-2050 MY.....  OBD--1996 and later MY   OBD--1996 and later MY
                                                                 beginning 6/1/03.        beginning 6/1/03.
                                                                ASM5015--1981-1995 MY    Two-Speed Idle--1981-
                                                                 amenable to dyno.        1995 MY.
                                                                 testing.                Idle--pre-1981 and
                                                                2500 RPM test--certain    HDGVs.
                                                                 exempt vehicles and
                                                                 those 1981 and newer
                                                                 MY not amenable to
                                                                 dyno. testing.
                                                                Idle--pre-1981 and
                                                                 HDGVs.
Visual Inspections...................  Positive Crankcase       Visual inspection of     Visual inspection of
                                        Ventilation (PCV)        the catalytic            the catalytic
                                        valve--1968-1971 MY      converter, presence of   converter, presence of
                                        inclusive                a gas cap, and fuel      a gas cap, and fuel
                                       Exhaust Gas               inlet restrictor--1975   inlet restrictor--1975
                                        Recirculation (EGR)      and newer (beginning     and newer (beginning
                                        valve--1972 and newer.   calendar 1985).          calendar 1985).
Evaporative System Function Checks...  N/A....................  Gas Cap Testing--1971    Gas Cap Testing--1971-
                                                                 and later vehicles \3\   2000 MY inclusive \3\
                                                                 (beginning calendar      (beginning calendar
                                                                 year 1998).              year 1998).
Pre- 1981 MY Stringency..............  20%....................  30%....................  30%.
Waiver Rate..........................  3%.....................  3% \4\.................  0%.
Compliance Rate......................  96%....................  98%....................  98%.
Evaluation Date \5\..................  January 1, 2002........  January 1, 2012........  January 1, 2012.
On-Road Testing......................  0.5% of the subject      0.5% of the subject      0.5% of the subject
                                        vehicle population or    vehicle population or    vehicle population or
                                        20,000 vehicles          20,000 vehicles          20,000 vehicles
                                        (whichever is less).     (whichever is less).     (whichever is less).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New Jersey conducted a study to assess the current effectiveness of its PIF network. The study concluded
  that the PIF network is currently 96 percent as effective as the CIF network.
\2\ For programs with existing I/M programs, like New Jersey's basic I/M program.
\3\ Only those pre-1981 vehicles that were equipped with sealed gas caps will be subject to the gas cap check.
  The State presumes that model year vehicles prior to 1970 were not equipped with a sealed gas cap.
\4\ The State assumed a zero percent waiver rate for pre-1981 vehicles as these vehicles are not eligible for a
  waiver based on the NJMVC inspection rules.
\5\ For all scenarios, summer season and temperatures were used for VOC/NOX evaluations, while winter season and
  temperatures were used for carbon monoxide evaluations.

    I/M programs are designed and implemented to meet or exceed an 
applicable minimum Federal performance standard. EPA's performance 
standards are derived from MOBILE6 utilizing ``model'' inputs and local 
characteristics (i.e., vehicle mix, fuel controls). Performance 
standards are expressed as emissions levels, in area-wide average gpm 
values, resulting from the I/M program. More conventionally, 
performance standards are expressed as emission reductions, as compared 
to a no I/M scenario. Although each enhanced I/M program must meet the 
enhanced performance standard as specified in 40 CFR 51.351, the 
performance standard emission factor results will vary for each state. 
This variation is the result of the use of state-specific inputs such 
as registration distribution and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) mix. 
Other local parameters, such as fuel type, add to state variations in 
determining the emission factors for EPA's performance standard 
program. While I/M jurisdictions are allowed to adopt alternate design 
features other than EPA's ``model'' inputs, compliance with the 
applicable performance standard must be demonstrated for the 
pollutant(s) that established I/M requirements.
    In addition to the parameters and assumptions shown previously in 
Table 1, New Jersey made other assumptions in order to complete its 
performance standard and program evaluation modeling. Table 2 shows 
what those assumptions were and what values where used to complete the 
modeling:

                         Table 2--Low Enhanced Performance Standard Modeling Assumptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Value used for average summer runs      Value used for average winter runs
       Modeling parameters                      (VOC and NOX)                        (carbon monoxide)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Temperature (F)..........  82.9..................................  41.2.
Minimum Temperature (F)..........  66.3..................................  26.7.
Absolute Humidity (grains/pound).  85.59.................................  20.00.
Speed............................  MOBILE6 Defaults......................  MOBILE6 Defaults.
Mechanic Training and              yes--100%.............................  yes--100%.
 Certification.

[[Page 57695]]

 
NJ Low Emission Vehicle Program w/ Yes...................................  Yes.
 o ZEV Mandate.
Gasoline RVP (psi)...............  6.8...................................  15.
Oxygenated Reformulated Gasoline.  10% Ethanol...........................  10% Ethanol.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Modeling performed by New Jersey and verified by EPA indicates that 
there is no significant difference between emission factors for New 
Jersey's existing and proposed enhanced I/M programs for ozone 
precursors (VOCs and NOX). The new enhanced I/M program 
results in a small decrease in the predicted carbon monoxide emission 
factor relative to the existing enhanced I/M program. This demonstrates 
that the proposed changes to the enhanced I/M program do not compromise 
New Jersey's efforts to meet and/or maintain NAAQS for ozone or carbon 
monoxide. The results of New Jersey's performance standard modeling 
show that the proposed enhanced I/M program meets the USEPA low 
enhanced performance standard. A summary of the modeling results is 
found in Table 3. The values seen in Table 3 are expressed as total 
mobile source emission factors.

                           Table 3--Low Enhanced Performance Standard Modeling Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Carbon  monoxide
                       Program type                             VOC (gpm)         NOX (gpm)           (gpm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USEPA Low Enhanced Performance Standard (2002)............           * 0.923           * 2.396          * 21.854
New Jersey Existing Enhanced I/M Program (2013)...........             0.349             0.687            10.045
New Jersey New Enhanced I/M Program (2013)................             0.348             0.688            10.028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*EPA allows for a +/- 0.02 gpm margin of error in meeting the performance standard values.

EPA's Evaluation

    EPA has reviewed New Jersey's proposed changes to its enhanced I/M 
program that differ from the previous Federally approved program and 
has determined that those changes satisfy the low enhanced performance 
standard and are therefore approvable into the SIP. 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. Does New Jersey demonstrate noninterference with attainment and 
maintenance under Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act?

    Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the 
requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(l) to be approved by 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.''
    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. 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. Thus, for 
example, modification of a SIP-approved measure may impact 
NOX emissions, which may impact PM2.5 emissions. 
The scope and rigor of an adequate section 110(l) demonstration of 
noninterference depends on the air quality status of the area, the 
potential impact of the revision on air quality, the pollutant(s) 
affected, and the nature of the applicable CAA requirements.
    New Jersey's modeling results indicate that there is no significant 
difference between emission factors for New Jersey's existing and 
proposed enhanced I/M programs for ozone precursors (VOCs and 
NOX). The new enhanced I/M program results in an 
insignificantly small increase in the predicted carbon monoxide 
emission factor relative to the existing enhanced I/M program.
    The increase is well below the EPA margin of error of +/- 0.02 gpm. 
This demonstrates that the proposed changes to the enhanced I/M program 
do not compromise New Jersey's efforts to meet and/or maintain NAAQS 
for ozone or carbon monoxide.
    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. EPA proposes to 
find that New Jersey has satisfied the section 110(l) of the CAA 
demonstration of noninterference.

VI. What are EPA's conclusions?

    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 EPA's technical requirements for an 
approvable Enhanced I/M program. 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 7:27-15, 7:27B-5, the Motor Vehicle 
Commission rules at N.J.A.C. 13:20-7, 13:20-24, 13:20-26, 13:20-28, 
13:20-29, 13:20-32, 13:20-33, 13:20-43, 13:20-44, 13:20-45, and 
N.J.A.C. 13:21-15.8, 13:21-15.12 and the amendments to chapter 8 of 
Title 39 of the Revised Statutes of the state of New Jersey at R.S. 
39:8-1, 39:8-2, and 39:8-3 which incorporate New Jersey's motor vehicle 
inspection program requirements. 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);

[[Page 57696]]

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 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 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, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 6, 2011.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2011-23862 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P