Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 52
DOCUMENT ID: [Region 2 Docket No. NJ48-229, FRL-7057-7]
NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES
ACTION: Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey Reasonably Available Control Measure Analysis and Additional Ozone Control Measures
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2001.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a June 18, 2001 New Jersey State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision involving the State's onehour Ozone Plan which is intended to meet two requirements: an analysis of Reasonably Available Control Measures and the need for additional emission reductions in order to attain the onehour national ambient air quality standard for ozone. The SIP revision applies to the New Jersey portions of two severe ozone nonattainment areasthe New York, Northern New Jersey, Long Island Area, and the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton Area. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of programs required by the Clean Air Act.
SUMMARY: New Jersey,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
This supplemental information section is organized as follows:I. Overview
A. What action is EPA taking today?
B. What did New Jersey submit?
II. Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis
A. What are the requirements for RACM Technology?
B. How does the State analysis address the RACM requirement?
1. Consideration and Implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs).
2. Consideration and Implementation of Stationary Source, Area Source, and other nonTCM Measures.
3. Results of RACM Analysis.
III. Additional Ozone Control Measures
A. Why additional emission reductions are needed?
B. What control measures will New Jersey propose?
C. What other efforts is New Jersey pursuing?
IV. Conclusions
V. Administrative Requirements
I. Overview
A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
EPA is proposing approval of a June 18, 2001 New Jersey SIP submittal which includes: an analysis of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and the identification of the additional emission reductions needed to attain the onehour national ambient air quality standard for ozone. After reviewing the SIP revision and considering it in light of EPA policy and guidance, EPA concludes that the emission reductions from the potential RACM measures will not advance the one hour ozone attainment date and thus there are no additional potential RACM measures that can be considered RACM for New Jersey's two severe onehour ozone nonattainment areas.
With respect to additional control measures designed to meet the
onehour ozone standard, New Jersey has identified the regional model
rules developed by the Ozone Transport Commission as those which the
State will be pursuing rulemaking for and which should result in
sufficient emission reductions to achieve the reductions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides ( NO
The submittal also includes an assessment of the progress New
Jersey has made in attaining the onehour ozone standard. The
assessment shows a continued downward trend in both the number of
violations of the standard and the measured ozone concentrations. While
New Jersey submitted this SIP revision to fulfill its commitment to
provide a midcourse review of its attainment status, EPA has
determined that several more years of monitored data and implementation
of the Regional NO
B. What Did New Jersey Submit?
On June 18, 2001, New Jersey submitted the proposed revision to the SIP entitled ``Update to Meeting the Requirements of the Alternate Ozone Attainment Demonstration Policy: Additional Emission Reductions, Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis, and MidCourse Review,'' and requested that EPA process the SIP revision in parallel with its administrative process. New Jersey held a public hearing on July 26, 2001 and is evaluating the comments that were received.
This revision is being proposed under a procedure called parallel processing, whereby EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrently with the state's procedures for amending its regulations. If the proposed revision is substantially changed in areas other than those identified in this document, EPA will evaluate those changes and may publish another notice of proposed rulemaking. If no substantial changes are made other than those areas cited in this document, EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the revisions. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been adopted by New Jersey and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.
This submittal applies to the New Jersey portions of two severe
ozone nonattainment areasthe New York, Northern New Jersey, Long
Island Area, and the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton Area. For
purposes of this action these areas will be referred to, respectively,
as the Northern New Jersey ozone nonattainment area (NAA) and the
Trenton ozone NAA. The counties located within the Northern New Jersey
NAA are: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris,
Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, and Union. The counties within the
Trenton NAA are: Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, and Salem.
[[Page 48848]]
II. Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis
A. What Are the Requirements for RACM Technology?
Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to contain RACM as
necessary to provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable.
EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirements
of section 172(c)(1). See the ``General Preamble for Implementation of
Title I of the CAAA of 1990'' (General Preamble), 57 FR 13498, 13560.
In that preamble, EPA stated that potentially available measures that
would not advance the attainment date for an area would not be
considered RACM. EPA also indicated in the General Preamble that states
should consider all potentially available measures to determine whether
they were reasonably available for implementation in the area, and
whether they would advance the attainment date. Further, the General
Preamble indicates that states should provide in the SIP submittals a
discussion of whether the measures considered are reasonably available
or not. If the measures are reasonably available, they must be adopted
as RACM. Finally, EPA indicated that states could reject potential RACM
either because they would not advance the attainment date or would
cause substantial widespread and longterm adverse impacts. States
could also consider local conditions, such as economics or
implementation concerns, in rejecting potential RACM. On November 30,
1999, John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, issued a memorandum on this topic, ``Guidance on the
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment
Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas' which
reiterated the CAA RACM requirements and elaborated on the General Preamble.
B. How Does the State Analysis Address the RACM Requirement?
New Jersey performed a RACM analysis which included an evaluation
of potential transportation control measures (TCMs) for onroad mobile
sources, potential control measures for point, area and offroad
sources, and other nonTCM onroad control measures. New Jersey ranked
the source categories by emission level to identify source categories
with the greatest potential for additional control measure benefits.
Individual measures were then evaluated with regard to their technical
feasibility, economic feasibility and the speed at which they could be
implemented. Finally, the sums of the estimated emissions benefits from
the potentially implementable measures were then compared to the
emission reductions required to advance the attainment dates for each
nonattainment area. This analysis was performed for the New Jersey
portions of the two severe nonattainment areas, the Trenton NAA and the Northern New Jersey NAA.
1. Consideration and Implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) examined 15 prospective mobile source measures to determine if any of these TCMs could be considered reasonably available control measures. The measures considered for this RACM analysis were identified by the New Jersey Department of Transportation in consultation with NJDEP. New Jersey initially screened the candidate measures to determine if they were available for potential implementation, and then each measure analyzed for its potential emissions reduction benefit, economic impact, practicability and potential adverse impact. New Jersey analyzed each prospective emission control measure for each nonattainment area.
The mobile source measures the State analyzed can be grouped into the following five categories; Travel Demand Management and Commuter Choice, Transportation Pricing Strategies and Scenarios, Traffic Flow Improvements, Transit Projects and Transit Oriented Design and Vehicle Fuel and Technology. The State also examined two nonmobile source land use related measures which have the potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicle emissions.
The State's analysis found that none of the TCM's, singularly or in
combination, will yield emissions benefits sufficient to advance the
attainment dates for the respective New Jersey ozone nonattainment
areas. The range of combined emissions benefits from VOC and
NO
Two land use measures were also reviewed and evaluated for their potential impact to reduce vehicle miles traveled and emissions. The measures were developed to achieve other State goals and include the statewide programs: Open Space Preservation Program in which the State commits to preserving 1,000,000 acres of open space over a tenyear period, and New Development and Redevelopment Plan which is based on ``smart growth'' principles.
The estimated emissions benefits in 2006 for the Open Space
Preservation Program are approximately 0.11 tons per/day of VOCs and
NO
The estimated emissions benefits in 2006 for the State Development
and Redevelopment Plan are approximately 0.452 ton per/day of VOCs and
NO
2. Consideration and Implementation of Stationary Source, Area Source, and Other NonTCM Measures
The NJDEP sorted the projected attainment year VOC and
NO
NO
[[Page 48849]]
each source category included evaluation of the potential emissions
reduction benefit, technical and economic feasibility, and analysis of
whether the measure could be implemented in time to advance the
attainment date. New Jersey analyzed the prospective emission control measures for each nonattainment area.
3. Results of RACM Analysis
New Jersey identified six potentially implementable control
measures which have a combined potential emission reduction benefit of
2.2 tons per day of VOC and 0.4 tons per day of NO
EPA has reviewed the RACM analysis and finds that the documentation New Jersey provided supports the State's conclusions. New Jersey evaluated all source categories that could contribute meaningful emission reductions. An extensive list of potential control measures was identified and reviewed. The State considered the time needed to implement these measures as a further screen of their reasonableness and availability. However, EPA believes that some of these control measures may offer some benefits in the future for purposes of an eighthour ozone standard, and recommends that New Jersey and other states in the OTR revisit these controls in the context of any future planning obligations.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's RACM analysis
and to determine that there are no individual or combined measures that
are technically and economically feasible and that would advance the
onehour ozone attainment dates for the two severe nonattainment areas in New Jersey.
III. Additional Ozone Control Measures
A. Why Additional Emission Reductions Are Needed?
When EPA evaluated New Jersey's onehour ozone attainment
demonstrations, EPA determined that additional emission reductions were
needed for the two severe nonattainment areas in order to attain the
onehour ozone standard with sufficient surety (December 16, 1999, 64
FR 70380). The table below identifies the additional emission reductions needed for the two nonattainment areas.
Table 1.EPA Identified Additional Emission Reductions
Additional required emission
reductions (tons per day) Nonattainment area
VOC NO
EPA provided that the States in the OTR could achieve these emission reductions through regional control programs. New Jersey decided to participate with the other states in the Northeast in an Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) regulatory development effort. New Jersey has been an active participant in the OTC's process of developing regional control strategies that would achieve the necessary additional reductions to attain the onehour ozone standard. B. What Control Measures Will New Jersey Propose?
New Jersey has decided to proceed with State rulemaking efforts for
the source categories for which the OTC developed model rules. This includes the following source categories:
VOC Control Measures
Commercial and consumer products,
Architectural and industrial maintenance coatings,
Solvent cleaning operations,
Mobile equipment repair and refinishing operations, and
Portable fuel containers.
NO
Industrial boilers,
Stationary combustion turbines, and
Stationary internal combustion engines.
New Jersey will be proposing rules for these source categories in separate rulemakings and taking public comment on the actual regulations and the basis and background which support the regulations. The purpose of this portion of the SIP submittal is to provide information in advance of New Jersey's rulemaking as to which source categories will be proposed and to provide a projection of the emission benefits from these proposed control measures. The State also provided evidence that the cumulative benefit from these measures will be sufficient to meet the additional emission reductions EPA identified as being needed to insure attainment of the onehour ozone standard in the multistate nonattainment areas. EPA will evaluate whether the adopted measures meet the shortfall at the time it evaluates the submitted measures as SIP revisions.
Applying OTC model rule's projected emission reductions to the VOC
and NO
Table 2.Estimated Emission Reductions From the Proposed Control Measures
Philadelphia, New York, Northern New
Wilmington, Trenton NAA Jersey, Long Island Area
Control measure NAA
VOC (tpd) NO
Total Projected Reductions.............................. 59 6 120 22
Needed Reductions....................................... 62 3 85 7 C. What Other Efforts Is New Jersey Pursuing?
New Jersey is pursuing three additional strategies: applying the OTC model rules to the three attaining counties in New Jersey, heavy duty diesel engine compliance assurance requirements, and more stringent requirements for gasoline transfer operations.
IV. Conclusions
EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's RACM analysis along with it's conclusions that there are no additional control measures available that are technically or economically feasible and that whose emission reductions would advance the attainment dates of 2005 for the Trenton NAA or 2007 for the Northern New Jersey NAA. EPA finds that the additional control measures that New Jersey will be proposing, coupled with those to be implemented by other states in the nonattainment area, should result in sufficient additional emission reductions to attain the onehour ozone standard by 2005 for the Trenton NAA and 2007 for the Northern New Jersey NAA. However, EPA will evaluate the measures and associated emission reductions at the time they are submitted as a SIP revision.
V. Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves State law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 1044). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a State rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 10, 2001.
William J. Muszynski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 0123220 Filed 92101; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656050P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Paul R. Truchan of the Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 100071866, (212) 6374249.
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 47 CFR Part 73 50 CFR Part 17 33 CFR Part 117 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 26 CFR Part 301 50 CFR Part 622 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 44 CFR Part 65 50 CFR Part 660 40 CFR Part 271 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 47 CFR Part 64 50 CFR Part 665 49 CFR Part 571 44 CFR Part 64 21 CFR Part 522 14 CFR Part 23 47 CFR Part 76