[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26562-26564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12720]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region II Docket No. NJ30-1-177, FRL-6013-3]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of New Jersey. This action is required because the revision 
changes one of the primary design considerations of the existing 
automobile inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. The intended 
effect of this action is to propose approving changes in the inspection 
frequency from annual to biennial and the addition of a gas cap 
inspection, which will result in a net increase in overall emissions 
reductions as previously approved by EPA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: Ronald J. Borsellino, 
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region II 
Office, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
    Copies of the State's submittal are available at the following 
addresses for inspection during normal business hours:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Air 
Quality Management, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, 401 East State 
Street, CN418, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Graciano, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 26, 1998 New Jersey submitted a revision to its State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) changing the inspection frequency, from 
annual to biennial, of its existing automobile

[[Page 26563]]

inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, through the addition of a 
regulation found at N.J.A.C. 13:20-43.7. Prior to this proposal, 
neither the New Jersey rules nor statutes adequately addressed the 
testing frequency for the transitional phase of the program, during 
which New Jersey is converting its basic I/M program to the enhanced I/
M program. New Jersey has had a basic I/M program in place since 1974. 
This program, in its current form, was subject to its most recent 
amendment on January 21, 1985, which was approved by EPA and 
incorporated into the SIP on September 17, 1992. 57 FR 42893. EPA 
conditionally approved New Jersey's enhanced I/M program on May 14, 
1997. 62 FR 26405. On January 30, 1998, the State submitted performance 
standard modeling to EPA, fulfilling the remaining condition required 
by EPA in its approval notice.
    Under provisions of sections 182, 184, and 187 of the Clean Air Act 
(Act), New Jersey is required to implement an enhanced I/M program 
throughout the entire State. In its July 10, 1995 and March 27, 1996 
SIP submittals, the State indicated that the enhanced I/M program would 
require biennial inspections, and suggested that early implementation 
of biennial testing may be necessary to facilitate system upgrades.
    In the February 26, 1998 request for a SIP revision, New Jersey 
indicated that during the transition period between the existing 
program and the new enhanced program, the State will require vehicles 
to be inspected biennially, rather than annually, to accommodate the 
decreased availability of centralized inspection lanes while they are 
being retrofitted for enhanced testing. The February 26, 1998 SIP 
revision states that, ``[t]he transition period will begin on the start 
date of the contract for the implementation of the enhanced I/M program 
and will end when the enhanced I/M program becomes mandatory.'' 
Pursuant to section 193 of the Act, such a change could not be approved 
if it results in increased emissions of volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs) and/or carbon monoxide (CO). In order to offset the increased 
VOC emissions, New Jersey is proposing early implementation of the test 
that checks the functional operation of vehicle gas caps. The gas cap 
checks will be implemented during the transition period from the 
existing program to the enhanced program rather than at the start of 
the enhanced program. New Jersey expects that this strategy will offset 
the increase in VOCs resulting from the conversion to biennial testing 
and has submitted modeling results that support this. New Jersey 
estimates that the resulting VOC emissions increase from changing the 
program frequency to biennial will be about 0.026 grams per mile. The 
VOC emissions reduction associated the functional gas cap test are 
estimated to be about 0.033 grams per mile, resulting in a net benefit 
of 0.007 grams per mile.
    New Jersey also estimates that CO emissions will increase about 
0.365 grams per mile as a result of the change in inspection frequency. 
In its revision package, the State notes that the carbon monoxide 
benefits gained through vehicle fleet turnover from January 1, 1996 
through January 1, 1998 are about 0.745 grams per mile. However, EPA 
points out that this emission reduction is not a function of the SIP 
per se. EPA acknowledges that the most efficient means to achieve 
significant carbon monoxide reduction and ultimate attainment is 
through the speedy implementation of the State's enhanced I/M program. 
Specifically, EPA expects that the State's enhanced I/M implementation 
will result in excess carbon monoxide benefits beyond the required 
performance standard. These are approximately 0.526 grams per mile.
    These air quality benefits cannot be achieved without accommodating 
the practical obstacles associated with retrofitting centralized test 
only stations, which include transitional biennial testing.
    Since the State is currently in the process of awarding 
construction and/or operation contracts for its approved enhanced 
program, New Jersey has requested that EPA proceed with an expedited 
decision process for this revision to the existing program. Therefore, 
approval of 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 State's 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 specified in this 
document, EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the revisions. 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. In addition, any action by the State 
resulting in undue delay in the contract award or selection process may 
result in a reproposal altering the approvability of the SIP.

Conclusion

    EPA believes New Jersey has provided an adequate rationale for 
early conversion of the existing program from annual to biennial 
testing. Furthermore, EPA supports the calculations submitted by the 
State indicating that the emissions shortfalls resulting from this 
change will be sufficiently offset by the strategies proposed and by 
the benefits of enhanced I/M implementation. Since the State is 
reducing the testing frequency of its current program to facilitate the 
implementation of the enhanced I/M program, EPA's approval of this 
testing frequency conversion under the terms of this SIP revision only 
applies after the State awards the necessary construction contracts for 
its enhanced I/M program.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from review under Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the 
federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify 
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities 
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship 
under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute 
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

[[Page 26564]]

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co. versus U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 
(1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not 
include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.
    The Regional Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the 
SIP revision will be based on whether it meets the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA 
regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.

The Congressional Review Act

    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. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic 
compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: April 30, 1998.
William J. Muszynski,
Deputy Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-12720 Filed 5-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U