[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3465-3474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1482]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket No. A98-46, FRL-6222-9]


Promulgation of Federal Implementation Plan for New Jersey; Ozone 
15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of section 110(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), EPA is proposing a federal implementation plan (FIP) that will 
further New Jersey's progress towards attaining the ozone standard. The 
intended effect of this FIP is to address the shortfall in the State's 
15 Percent Rate of Progress (ROP) Plans for the New Jersey portions of 
two severe ozone nonattainment areas--the New York, Northern New 
Jersey, Long Island Area, and the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton 
Area. EPA was required to develop a FIP because New Jersey did not meet 
the condition in it's federally-approved 15 Percent ROP Plans requiring 
New Jersey to implement an enhanced inspection and maintenance program 
by November 15, 1997. Pursuant to a court order, EPA's final FIP must 
be signed by the EPA Administrator no later than August 15, 1999.
    EPA's proposed FIP relies on four already-adopted federal air 
pollution control measures that will result in the required volatile 
organic compound (VOC) emission reductions. Specifically, the FIP 
recognizes VOC reductions resulting from the emission standards for new 
nonroad spark-ignition engines, the emission standards for automobile 
refinish coatings, and the emission standards for architectural 
coatings. In addition, for the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton Area, 
the FIP relies upon emission reductions from the already adopted 
National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations. In total, 
these measures will result in sufficient VOC emission reductions to 
achieve the 15 Percent ROP demonstration required by the CAA. Because 
these requirements are already adopted they will provide the emission

[[Page 3466]]

reductions in the most expeditious time frame.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 17, 1999. EPA has 
scheduled a public hearing on the New Jersey Ozone 15 Percent Shortfall 
FIP for March 3, 1999 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the EPA's proposed FIP must be received 
by EPA at the address below on or before March 17, 1999. Comments 
should be submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to: Ronald Borsellino, 
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region II 
Office, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
    The public hearing will be held at the following location: Rutgers 
University, New Brunswick, Labor Education Center, Labor Center Way, 
room 102. For directions, please contact Paul Truchan at (212) 637-
3711.
    A copy of docket No. A98-46, containing material relevant to EPA's 
proposed action, is available for review at: Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
    Interested persons may make an appointment with Paul Truchan (212) 
637-3711 to inspect the docket at EPA's New York City office on 
weekdays between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.
    A copy of docket No. A98-46 is also available to review at the 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.
    Electronic availability: This document is also available as an 
electronic file on EPA's Region 2 Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/ region02.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Truchan, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 
New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary
    A. Introduction--the Shortfall
    B. FIP Proposal
    C. Public Involvement
II. Background
    A. Clean Air Act Requirements
    B. Chronology of Actions Related to New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP 
Plans
    C. Relation to the 8-hour Average Ozone Standard
III. FIP Development Process
    A. New Jersey's Efforts To Make Up the 15 Percent Shortfall
    B. Federal Implementation Plan Provisions
    C. FIP Selection Factors
IV. Description of the Measures Included in the Proposed FIP
    A. New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines
    1. Background
    2. Emission Standards
    3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
    4. Emission Reductions
    B. Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings
    1. Background
    2. Emission Standards
    3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
    4. Emission Reductions
    C. Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings
    1. Background
    2. Emission Standards
    3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
    D. National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations
    1. Background
    2. Compliance and Recordkeeping
    3. Emission Reductions
    E. Summary of New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plan and FIP
V. Conclusion:
VI. Administrative Requirements

I. Executive Summary

A. Introduction--the Shortfall

    Today's action affects two areas of New Jersey which have been 
designated as nonattainment of the 1-hour national ambient air quality 
standard (NAAQS) for ozone. The measured levels of ozone in these areas 
were high enough that these areas were classified as having a 
``severe'' ozone problem. These nonattainment areas are the portion of 
New Jersey in the New York, Northern New Jersey, Long Island ozone 
nonattainment area, and the portion of New Jersey in the Philadelphia, 
Wilmington, Trenton ozone nonattainment area. For the purposes of this 
action, these areas will be referred to as, respectively, the Northern 
New Jersey nonattainment area and the Trenton nonattainment area. These 
two severe nonattainment areas involve 18 of New Jersey's 21 counties 
and contain approximately 95 percent of the State's population. The 
counties located within the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area are: 
Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, 
Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, and Union. The counties within the Trenton 
nonattainment area are: Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester, 
Mercer, and Salem.
    Ground level ozone, often known as smog, is the air pollution that 
blankets many urban areas during the summer. When inhaled, even at low 
levels, ozone can cause temporary respiratory problems and aggravate 
asthma in children, the elderly, those with respiratory disease, and 
even otherwise healthy adults who are working or exercising outside on 
a smoggy day. Children are exposed to ozone more often because they 
tend to be out doors during summer. Long-term exposures to ozone may 
lead to premature aging of the lungs and chronic respiratory illnesses. 
Ozone also damages crops, rubberized materials and fabrics. A more 
complete description of the health effects of ozone and EPA's 8-hour 
ozone standard is available at the following EPA web site: http://
ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/naaqsfin/. State plans to meet this new standard 
are not due to EPA until 2003. Today's proposal will bring the State 
closer to meeting the previously established one-hour ozone standard 
which remains in effect for areas such as the two New Jersey 
nonattainment areas. Today's proposal will also, in turn, bring New 
Jersey closer to meeting the new more stringent 8-hour standard.
    Ground-level ozone is formed by the atmospheric reaction of VOCs 
and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. The primary source of 
VOC emissions are: exhaust from automobiles, sport utility vehicles, 
trucks and other gasoline burning engines, solvent evaporation from 
paints and coatings, evaporation of petroleum products, and industrial 
manufacturing and surface coating operations. While nitrogen oxides 
also contribute to the formation of ozone they are not a part of 
today's action, as the 15 Percent ROP requirement in the CAA applies 
only to VOC emissions. There are separate CAA requirements for nitrogen 
oxides.
    The CAA provides a framework that the states must follow in order 
to attain the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as possible. This framework 
requires, at a minimum, the early adoption of specific control measures 
to achieve Reasonable Further Progress--including a 15 percent 
reduction in VOC emissions between 1990 and 1996. The CAA also provides 
that EPA has an obligation to develop a FIP if EPA disapproves a SIP 
for failing to provide the required VOC emission reduction strategies 
needed to make progress towards meeting the health-based standard.
    New Jersey's federally-approved 15 Percent ROP Plans for the two 
severe ozone nonattainment areas relied on the emission reductions from 
several control measures including the implementation of a State 
enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. When implementation 
of this program was delayed, these emission reductions could not be 
achieved on schedule. Therefore, EPA's conditional approval of the New 
Jersey 15 Percent ROP Plans converted to a disapproval and EPA is now 
obligated to develop a FIP that will make up for the VOC emission 
reduction shortfall. This shortfall is 30.86 tons per day in the 
Northern New Jersey nonattainment

[[Page 3467]]

area and 10.24 tons per day in the Trenton nonattainment area.
    In addition, EPA is under court order, as a result of a lawsuit by 
the American Lung Association of Northern Virginia, et al., to 
promulgate a FIP which makes up the shortfall in the 15 Percent ROP 
Plan for the Trenton nonattainment area. Under the Consent Agreement, 
EPA has until January 15, 1999, to propose and August 15, 1999, to 
adopt the FIP.

B. FIP Proposal

    EPA's FIP proposal for the Northern New Jersey and Trenton 
nonattainment areas relies on the emission reductions from three EPA-
promulgated national air pollution control measures: the emission 
standards for new nonroad spark-ignition engines, the emission 
standards for automobile refinish coatings, and the emission standards 
for architectural coatings. In addition to the above measures, in the 
Trenton nonattainment area EPA's proposed FIP also includes emission 
reductions from the already-adopted national emission standard for 
benzene waste operations. These measures were selected because they are 
already adopted and will therefore, most expeditiously result in 
emission reductions.
    The CAA and the Consent Agreement require EPA to develop a FIP to 
make up for shortfalls in New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plans. Another 
consequence of EPA's disapproval of the New Jersey 15 Percent ROP Plans 
is that a mandatory sanction process was started. The CAA provides for 
two mandatory sanctions: first, 18 months after notification, a 
requirement to offset the increased emissions from new or modified 
major sources of air pollution at a rate of two tons of reduction for 
every one ton of increased emissions; and second, 24 months after 
notification, restrictions on the receipt of federal highway funds. 
This sanctions process is only terminated by EPA approval of a new 15 
Percent ROP SIP revision, not by promulgation of this FIP.
    EPA is working closely with New Jersey so that the State can 
develop an approvable 15 Percent ROP Plan which will replace EPA's FIP 
and avoid these sanctions.

C. Public Involvement

    EPA is today announcing a public hearing on this FIP proposal. The 
public comment period will begin upon publication of the FIP proposal 
and will remain open for 30 days following the public hearing. EPA 
encourages everyone who has an interest in this proposal to comment 
upon it. EPA will consider all comments received during the public 
comment period in preparing the final FIP.

II. Background

A. Clean Air Act Requirements

    Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA requires each ozone nonattainment area 
with a classification of moderate or above to develop a plan to reduce 
area-wide VOC emissions by 15 percent from a 1990 adjusted baseline, 
known as a 15 Percent ROP Plan. These plans were to be submitted by 
November 15, 1993.

B. Chronology of Actions Related to New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plans

    New Jersey's original submittal was determined to be incomplete on 
February 2, 1994, which started a sanction process and a federal 
obligation to promulgate a FIP within 24 months, unless New Jersey 
satisfactorily fulfills the CAA requirements. The original submittal 
was determined to be incomplete because it relied on emission 
reductions from an enhanced I/M program that New Jersey had not yet 
adopted. On July 10, 1995, New Jersey submitted a SIP revision 
containing an adopted enhanced I/M program that EPA subsequently 
determined to be complete on August 1, 1995. This stopped the sanction 
process, but EPA's FIP obligation would remain until EPA took final 
action to approve the 15 Percent ROP Plan. EPA did not act further on 
the State's submittals because subsequent to the July 10, 1995 enhanced 
I/M submittal the State decided to revise the enhanced I/M program to 
make use of the flexibility that Congress provided to states in the 
National Highway System Designation Act, which was enacted in November 
1995.
    EPA's FIP obligation continued, and, as a result of a lawsuit by 
the American Lung Association of Northern Virgina, et al., relating to 
the Trenton nonattainment area, EPA entered into a consent agreement 
that contained a schedule for the promulgation of a FIP if New Jersey 
failed to submit a 15 Percent ROP SIP, or if EPA did not approve it, or 
if New Jersey failed to implement any conditions of the approved SIP. 
This consent agreement only applies to the Trenton nonattainment area.
    On April 30, 1997 (62 FR 23410), EPA proposed conditional interim 
approval of New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plans and, on June 30, 1997 (62 
FR 35100), EPA gave final conditional interim approval to the 15 
Percent ROP Plans, as well as approving several other CAA SIP 
requirements. In this notice EPA found that the control measures 
included in the plans would achieve 15 Percent ROP by November 15, 
1999, which is as soon as practicable. The conditions placed on the 15 
Percent ROP Plan approval related only to the enhanced I/M program. No 
conditions regarding any of the other measures were included in EPA's 
approval. As a result of a delay in the start up of the conditionally 
approved enhanced I/M program, which delayed full implementation by 
more than one year, EPA made a finding that the State failed to 
implement the enhanced I/M program and disapproved New Jersey's 15 
Percent ROP Plans on December 12, 1997.
    EPA's FIP obligation with respect to the 15 Percent ROP Plans is 
limited to adopting control measures which will eliminate the resulting 
emission reduction shortfall caused by the delay in the enhanced I/M 
program since the other portions of New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP plan 
are still approved as part of New Jersey's SIP and are still producing 
VOC emission reductions that benefit the environment. Under the Consent 
Agreement, EPA has until January 15, 1999 to propose the FIP and has 
until August 15, 1999 to adopt a FIP.

C. Relation to the 8-hour Average Ozone Standard

    In July 1997, EPA adopted a new, more protective 8-hour ozone 
standard. However, for the purposes of making progress toward this new 
eight-hour ozone standard, the requirements for the old one-hour 
standard remain in effect until areas attain the one-hour standard. The 
requirement for a 15 Percent ROP Plan in the Northern New Jersey and 
the Trenton nonattainment areas continues since neither location has 
yet attained the one-hour ozone standard. Today's action deals only 
with the implementation of measures to make progress towards attainment 
of the one-hour ozone standard.

III. FIP Development Process

A. New Jersey's Efforts To Make Up the 15 Percent Shortfall

    New Jersey is now in the process of revising its 15 Percent ROP 
Plans to make up for the shortfall created by the delay in implementing 
its enhanced I/M program. As part of this effort, New Jersey identified 
its landfill control program which was State promulgated and SIP-
approved but was not included in its original 15 Percent ROP Plans. In 
addition, New Jersey used more accurate landfill emission estimating 
techniques which lowered the 1990

[[Page 3468]]

emissions from this category. The revised landfill emissions result in 
lower 1990 baseline emissions and, therefore, lower the amount of 
reductions needed to show 15 Percent ROP. In a letter dated November 9, 
1998, New Jersey provided revised landfill information to be used in 
the revised 15 Percent ROP Plans. EPA considers this information to be 
the latest and most accurate assessment of the base year emissions. 
This correction reduces the shortfall which the FIP needs to account 
for from 31.41 to 30.86 tons per day in the Northern New Jersey 
nonattainment area and from 10.55 to 10.24 tons per day in the Trenton 
nonattainment area. With the exception of the enhanced inspection and 
maintenance program, all control programs have been adopted, 
implemented, and approved by EPA in the SIP. The table in section 
IV.E., provides a summary of New Jersey's previously conditionally 
approved 15 Percent ROP Plan and the resulting shortfall after 
consideration of the revised landfill data.
    Therefore, EPA is basing its FIP on the need to make up for an 
emission reduction shortfall of 30.86 tons per day in the Northern New 
Jersey nonattainment area and 10.24 tons per day in the Trenton 
nonattainment area by November 15, 1999, the date which EPA previously 
found to be as soon as possible in New Jersey.

B. Federal Implementation Plan Provisions

    Section 110(c) of the CAA provides that:
    (1) The Administrator shall promulgate a federal implementation 
plan at any time within 2 years after the Administrator--
    (A) Finds that the state has failed to make a required submission 
or finds that the plan or plan revision submitted by the state does not 
satisfy the minimum criteria established under section 
110(k)(1)(A),1 or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 110(k)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to 
promulgate minimum criteria that any plan submission must meet 
before EPA is required to act on the submission. These completeness 
criteria are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Disapproves a State Implementation Plan submission in whole or 
in part, unless the state corrects the deficiency, and the 
Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the 
Administrator promulgates such federal implementation plan.
    EPA has wide-ranging authority under section 110(c) to fill in gaps 
left by a state failure. EPA's authority to prescribe FIP measures is 
of three types. First, EPA may promulgate any measure for which it has 
the authority under CAA provisions. Second, EPA may invoke section 
110(c)'s general FIP authority and act to cure a planning inadequacy in 
any way not clearly prohibited by statute. Third, under section 110(c), 
the courts have held that EPA may exercise all authority that the state 
may exercise under the Act. For a more detailed discussion of these 
authorities and restrictions on EPA's FIP authorities, see 59 FR 23262, 
23290-23292 (May 5, 1994).

C. FIP Selection Factors

    In selecting proposed control measures to remedy the shortfall, EPA 
was guided by the following factors in evaluating potential control 
measures:
1. Existing SIP
    EPA removed from further consideration any measure which was 
already approved as part of the SIP and where the State has credited 
that measure towards meeting rate of progress requirements.
2. Applicability to New Jersey
    Before a measure can be considered as a potential FIP control 
measure, EPA must first determine if the measure would have any 
inherent potential to reduce VOC emissions in the affected 
nonattainment areas.
3. Legal Authority
    EPA must have the legal authority under the CAA to promulgate, 
implement, and enforce a measure, and must not be preempted from 
promulgating, implementing, or enforcing it by other federal statutes, 
regulations, or court orders before it considers a measure reasonably 
available for implementation in a FIP. EPA's FIP authority under CAA 
section 110(c) is broad (see section II.A.3. above); however, the 
Agency is constrained in specific instances by the CAA itself. See 
e.g., CAA section 110(a)(5)(A)(i) (prohibition on indirect source 
review programs) and section 110(c)(2)(B) (prohibition on parking 
surcharges).
    EPA's authority to promulgate measures in a FIP that require a 
state to enact legislation or expend state funds is limited. EPA may 
require a state to enact legislation or expend its funds if the FIP 
measures affect the pollution-creating activities of the State itself, 
but may not do so if the effect is to govern the pollution-creating 
activities of others. For example, EPA could not require a state to 
regulate buses within the state. EPA could, however, require a state to 
retrofit state-owned buses to reduce emissions from those buses as part 
of an EPA strategy to regulate buses in general. For a detailed 
discussion of this issue, see 52 FR 23263, 23291-23292 (February 5, 
1994) (proposed ozone and carbon monoxide FIP for the South Coast Air 
Basin).
4. Method of Implementation
    EPA considered the method of implementing the measure in 
determining whether a measure was available to EPA for promulgation 
under the FIP, i.e., (1) by rule requiring the owner/operator of the 
source to implement the control, (2) by direct action by EPA, or (3) by 
providing additional funding to the state or local agency to implement 
the measure.
5. Technological Feasibility
    As the term is proposed to be used here, technological feasibility 
means that the control measure is currently available and being 
implemented elsewhere and that the measure can achieve VOC emission 
reductions.
6. Cost of Implementation
    In considering the cost of implementing a measure in an area, the 
General Preamble for EPA action on SIPs under the 1990 amendments to 
the CAA (57 FR 13541) suggests that in case of public sector sources 
and control measures, the cost evaluation should consider the impact of 
the reasonableness of the measures on the governmental entity that must 
bear the responsibility for their implementation.
    In promulgating a FIP, EPA is the primary implementing entity. As 
such, EPA must evaluate the reasonableness of potential control 
measures based on its financial and resource capabilities. The Agency 
notes that its duty to promulgate and implement FIPs is in addition to, 
rather than a replacement of, its other duties under the Clean Air Act. 
As such, where implementing a potential FIP measure would require the 
Agency to expend substantial efforts to acquire needed resources, 
including financial resources, EPA should take such factors into 
consideration in determining whether the measure is practicable and, 
thus, reasonable to implement.

IV. Description of the Measures Included in the Proposed FIP

    The following control measures are being proposed to meet the 
shortfall in New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plans. In EPA's assessment, 
these measures will eliminate the shortfall in the most expeditious 
manner, with the least inconvenience to the public, and with

[[Page 3469]]

the most effective use of available federal resources.

A. New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines

1. Background
    Prior to 1990, EPA's regulatory programs for motor vehicles and 
engines dealt only with on-road vehicles. In the CAA as amended in 
1990, section 213(a)(1) directed EPA to study the contributions to air 
quality from nonroad engines and vehicles. Section 213(a)(2) of the CAA 
directed the Administrator to determine whether the emissions from 
nonroad sources are significant contributors to ozone or carbon 
monoxide in more than one nonattainment area and, if so, directed the 
Administrator to promulgate regulations for nonroad engines. EPA 
determined that there are substantial summertime VOC emissions from 
nonroad sources in many nonattainment areas.
    On May 16, 1994, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for 
small nonroad engines (59 FR 25399). This Federal Register notice, 
``Control of Air Pollution; Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-
Ignition Engines at or Below 19 Kilowatts,'' proposed emission 
standards that are expected to result in a 32 percent reduction in VOC 
emissions and a 14 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions 
nationally by the year 2020 when complete fleet turnover is projected. 
In a July 3, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 34581), EPA promulgated a 
first phase of the final regulations to control emissions from new 
nonroad spark-ignition engines. This regulation is contained in the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, ``Part 90--Control of 
Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines.'' A second phase will be 
adopted in the future. The FIP only relies on the emission reductions 
from this first fully promulgated phase. The reader is referred to 
these proposed and final Federal Register notices for greater detail.
2. Emission Standards
    This regulation is applicable to nonroad spark-ignition engines and 
vehicles that have a gross power output at or below 19 kilowatts and is 
effective for the 1997 model year and beyond. These engines are used 
principally in lawn and garden equipment and include such equipment as 
lawn mowers, leaf blowers, trimmers, chainsaws, and generators. Section 
90.1(b) of 40 CFR Part 90 specifies those engine applications which are 
exempt from these emission standards.
    Section 90.103 specifies the exhaust emission standards. Such 
standards are based on both engine displacement and whether the 
equipment is handheld. There are emission standards for hydrocarbons 
(VOCs), carbon monoxides, and oxides of nitrogen.
3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
    EPA has established certification procedures which engine 
manufacturers must comply with in order to obtain a ``Certificate of 
Conformity.'' These procedures include engine testing, data reporting, 
record keeping, and labeling.
    The inclusion of this control measure in the New Jersey FIP does 
not require any additional effort or burden to the manufacturers. There 
will be no separate testing, record keeping, or reporting requirements 
under the New Jersey FIP. Compliance with the national rule (40 CFR 
Part 90) is sufficient to insure compliance and emission reductions in 
New Jersey or any other state.
4. Emission Reductions
    EPA has determined that the new nonroad standards will reduce VOC 
emissions by 13.1 percent in 1997, 19.5 percent in 1998, and 23.9 
percent in 1999 nationally. Applying these percentages to New Jersey's 
specific engine population, the resulting VOC emission reductions that 
will be achieved in 1999 will be 16.19 tons per day in the Northern New 
Jersey nonattainment area and 5.71 tons per day in the Trenton 
nonattainment area. EPA's technical analysis supporting these numbers 
is contained in the docket for this rulemaking.

B. Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings

1. Background
    In the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, section 183(e) directs EPA 
to study the emissions of VOCs into the ambient air from consumer and 
commercial products and determine their potential contribution to ozone 
levels. In this study EPA was to list the categories of consumer or 
commercial products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC 
emissions from these products in ozone nonattainment areas and develop 
a schedule for regulating these categories over the next eight years.
    Based on this study, EPA concluded that VOC emissions from 
automobile refinish coatings have the potential to contribute to ozone 
levels that violate the NAAQS for ozone. On April 30, 1996 (61 FR 
19005), EPA proposed the ``National Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) 
Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings (Autobody 
Refinishing).'' A supplemental proposal was published on December 30, 
1997 (62 FR 67784). On September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48806), EPA 
promulgated final regulations at 40 CFR Part 59, Subpart B--``National 
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish 
Coatings'' (Subpart B).
2. Emission Standards
    The promulgated rule is applicable to all entities nationally that 
manufacture or import automobile refinish coating components or 
complete refinish coatings. Regulated automobile refinish coatings are 
pretreatment wash primers, primers/primer surfacers, primer sealers, 
single/two-stage topcoats, topcoats of more than two stages, multi-
colored top coats, and specialty coatings. The VOC content standards 
are dependent on the coating category and specify limitations in grams 
of VOC per liter of coating.
3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
    Automobile refinish coatings and coating components manufactured on 
or after January 11, 1999 must be in compliance with 40 CFR Part 59, 
Subpart B. Containers must be labeled with the date of manufacture or a 
code for the date. An initial report must be filed with EPA by January 
11, 1999 or within 180 days after becoming subject to the rule. For 
purposes of determining compliance, the VOC content of each coating or 
component may be determined using EPA's Reference Method 24--
``Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density, 
Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings,'' found in 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A.
    It should be noted that the inclusion of this control measure in 
the New Jersey FIP does not require any additional effort or burden to 
the manufacturers or importers of automobile refinishing components or 
coatings. There will be no separate testing, record keeping or 
reporting requirements. Compliance with the national rule will be 
sufficient to insure compliance and emissions reductions in New Jersey 
or any other state.
4. Emission Reductions
    EPA has determined that the automobile refinish coating standards 
will result in VOC emission reductions in 1999 of 13.23 tons per day in 
the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area and 3.44 tons per day in the 
Trenton nonattainment area using New Jersey specific data on the 
automobile

[[Page 3470]]

refinishing industry. EPA's technical analysis supporting these numbers 
is contained in the docket for this rulemaking.

C. Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings

1. Background
    EPA developed national regulations for architectural coatings as 
part of a larger requirement to control VOC emissions from certain 
categories of consumer and commercial products. Based on this study, 
EPA concluded that VOC emissions from architectural coatings have the 
potential to contribute to ozone levels that violate the NAAQS for 
ozone.
    EPA proposed the ``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission 
Standards for Architectural Coatings'' (Architectural rule) on June 25, 
1996 (61 FR 32729) and September 3, 1996 (61 FR 46410), and the comment 
period was further extended on October 8, 1996 (61 FR 52735). On 
September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48848), EPA promulgated final regulations at 
40 CFR Part 59, Subpart D--``National Volatile Organic Compound 
Emission Standards For Architectural Coatings.'' The reader is referred 
to these Federal Register notices for greater detail.
    New Jersey developed its own architectural coatings regulation, 
Subchapter 23 ``Prevention of Air Pollution From Architectural Coatings 
and Consumer Products,'' which was originally adopted in 1989 and 
subsequently revised. The regulation took effect in January 1990 for 
Group 1 products and March 1990 for Group 2 products. The regulation 
allowed coatings manufactured before 1990 to be sold until 1993. 
Because of the uncertainty in determining when the emission reductions 
occurred, New Jersey treated this source category as uncontrolled in 
the 1990 base year emission inventory. By 1999, Subchapter 23 would 
have achieved emission reductions of as much as 4.9 tons per day in 
Northern New Jersey nonattainment area and 0.9 tons per day in the 
Trenton nonattainment area. However, EPA is not proposing to take 
credit for the reductions associated with New Jersey's regulation at 
this time because EPA was unable to verify the quantity of VOC emission 
reductions which occurred after 1990 and would be creditable towards 
the 15 Percent ROP Plan. Rather, EPA is taking credit only for the 
emission reductions associated with those categories of coatings where 
EPA's national rule goes beyond New Jersey's rule. This decision 
provides a cushion in the emission reduction estimates that addresses 
any uncertainty in EPA's proposed FIP.
2. Emission Standards
    The national architectural coatings rule is applicable to all 
entities that manufacture or import for sale or distribution in the 
United States architectural coatings. Architectural coatings include, 
but are not limited to, such coatings as: primers and sealers, flat and 
nonflat paints, stains, enamels, and wood preservatives. A complete 
list of coatings subject to this rule is contained in 40 CFR part 59, 
subpart D, Table 1. The VOC content standards are dependent on the 
coating category and specify limitations expressed as grams of VOC per 
liter of coating. The rule contains a tonnage exemption for exempting 
limited quantities of coatings. EPA also included an exceedance fee 
provision in the national rule. Under this provision, manufacturers or 
importers would have the option of paying a fee, based on the amount 
that VOC content levels are exceeded, instead of actually achieving the 
VOC content limitations. The fee is $0.0028 per gram or $2,500 per ton. 
EPA believes this will provide an option where the cost of 
reformulating low volume specialty coatings is high, while still 
providing an incentive to reformulate. EPA took this option into 
consideration in calculating the emission reduction potential of this 
rule as it would be used in the FIP.
3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
    Architectural coatings manufactured on or after September 11, 1999 
for sale or distribution in the United States must meet the VOC content 
limitations of 40 CFR part 59, table 1 (the compliance date for 
coatings subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act is May 10, 2000). Containers must be labeled with the date of 
manufacture or a code for the date and the VOC content in the coating. 
An initial report must be filed with EPA no later than September 13, 
1999 or within 180 days after becoming subject to the rule. 
Manufacturers must maintain records for a period of three years. For 
purposes of determining compliance, the VOC content of each coating or 
component may be determined using EPA's Reference Method 24--
``Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density, 
Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings,'' found in 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A (or an alternate method approved by EPA), 
formulation data, or other appropriate means. In the event of a 
discrepancy, however, the results from Method 24 (or the approved 
alternative method) govern.
    It should be noted that the inclusion of this control measure in 
the New Jersey FIP does not require any additional effort or burden to 
the manufacturers or importers of architectural coatings. There will be 
no separate testing, recordkeeping or reporting requirements. 
Compliance with the national rule will be sufficient to ensure emission 
reductions and compliance in New Jersey or any other state.
4. Emission Reductions
    EPA calculated the additional benefit from applying the national 
architectural coating rule, which has more stringent emission limits 
than New Jersey's current rule for some categories. The national rule 
will result in additional VOC emission reductions of 2.31 tons per day 
in the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area and 0.89 tons per day in 
the Trenton nonattainment area using New Jersey specific population 
data. EPA's technical analysis supporting these numbers is contained in 
the docket for this rulemaking.

D. National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations

1. Background
    On March 7, 1990 (55 FR 8292), the EPA promulgated the national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS) for benzene 
emissions from benzene waste operations, 40 CFR part 61, Subpart FF 
(the rule). EPA initially issued a stay of effectiveness for this rule 
on March 5, 1992. EPA published a final rule on January 7, 1993 (58 FR 
3072) that clarified the provisions and lifted the stay. The final 
benzene waste operations rule became effective on January 7, 1993.
2. Emission Standards
    The rule is applicable to owners or operators of chemical 
manufacturing plants, manufacturing plants, coke by-product recovery 
plants, and petroleum refineries nationally and includes facilities 
with waste management units that treat, store or dispose of waste 
containing benzene. The final amendments clarify points on compliance 
that give owners and operators increased flexibility in meeting the 
requirements of the rule while meeting the NESHAPS goals for risk 
protection.
    The rule requires control of benzene emissions from waste that is 
placed in storage tanks; surface impoundments; containers; individual 
drain systems; oil-water separators; treatment

[[Page 3471]]

processes; and closed vent systems. (See 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF and 
58 FR 3071 for more details on these regulations.) For this 15 Percent 
ROP FIP action, EPA is only claiming credit for wastewater treatment 
processes at one facility covered by this rule. While the rule has 
resulted in real additional emission reductions, these emission 
reductions are not included as part of EPA's emission reduction 
calculations because they are not needed to fulfill the shortfall in 
the New Jersey 15 Percent ROP Plan.
    Owners and operators of wastewater streams meeting the 
applicability requirements in sections 61.340 and 61.342 are required 
to comply with the following wastewater stream and process vent control 
requirements:
    Such operators must install and operate a treatment process that 
removes benzene from the wastewater stream either to a level less than 
10 parts per million by weight (ppmw) on a flow weighted annual average 
basis; or by at least 99 percent on a mass basis; or, by incinerating 
the waste in a combustion unit that achieves a destruction efficiency 
of at least 99 percent.
3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
    Owners and operators subject to Subpart FF Sections 61.340 and 
61.342 were required to comply with the control requirements outlined 
in sections 61.348 and 61.349 by April 7, 1993. Provisions under these 
sections require the owner or operator to report and maintain records 
which both identify each waste stream at a facility for streams 
controlled and uncontrolled for benzene emissions and include emission 
test results, emission measurements, annual waste quantity and other 
documentation related to wastewater processes. Records must be kept for 
at least 2 years from the date the information is recorded.
4. Emission Reductions
    As mentioned earlier, Subpart FF requires control of benzene 
emissions from waste placed in storage tanks, surface impoundments, 
containers, individual drain systems, oil-water separators, treatment 
processes, and closed vent systems. However, EPA is only crediting 
emission reductions from the wastewater treatment processes at one of 
several petroleum refineries in the Trenton nonattainment area although 
additional reductions could be documented if needed to meet the 
shortfall. Complying with these provisions has resulted in VOC emission 
reductions of 2.37 tons per day in the New Jersey portion of the 
Trenton nonattainment area. EPA's technical analysis supporting these 
numbers is contained in the docket for this rulemaking.

E. Summary of New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plan and FIP

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Northern New
                                            Jersey NAA      Trenton NAA
                                            (tons/day)      (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 15 Percent ROP Plan Required Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally required reductions..........          129.82           37.18
    Changes to required reductions due
     to lower landfill emissions in base
     year inventory.....................           -1.09           -0.49
New required reductions.................          128.73           36.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Reductions from New Jersey Control Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally approved New Jersey control
 measure reductions.....................          130.82           38.28
    Benefit from landfill controls......            0.13            0.08
    Removal of enhanced I/M reductions..          -33.08          -11.91
Currently achieved reductions...........           97.87           26.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Shortfall Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New required reductions.................          128.73           36.69
Currently achieved reductions...........           97.87           26.45
SIP shortfall...........................           30.86           10.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Proposed FIP Control Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines......           16.19            5.71
Automobile Refinish Coatings............           13.23            3.44
Architectural Coatings..................            2.31            0.89
Benzene Waste NESHAPS...................  ..............            2.37
        Total FIP Measures..............           31.73           12.41
                                         -------------------------------
        Excess Reductions...............            0.87            2.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional emissions reductions have been achieved from New 
Jersey's architectural coatings regulation and the national emission 
standard for benzene waste operations, but have not been specifically 
enumerated in this notice since sufficient reductions have already been 
identified to achieve the 15 Percent ROP requirement.

V. Conclusion

    EPA's proposed FIP addresses shortfalls in New Jersey's 15 Percent 
ROP Plans using measures with real air pollution reductions that are 
either already fully implemented or are fully adopted and in the 
process of being achieved. These measures will continue New Jersey's 
progress toward meeting the federal air quality one-hour ozone standard 
and will result in cleaner, healthier air for all New Jersey residents.
    Specifically, EPA is proposing a FIP for New Jersey to address the 
shortfall in the 15 Percent ROP Plans for the two severe ozone 
nonattainment areas--the Northern New Jersey area and the Trenton area. 
EPA'S FIP relies on

[[Page 3472]]

emission reductions from three EPA adopted control measures for the 
Northern New Jersey and Trenton nonattainment areas, emission standards 
for new nonroad spark-ignition engines, emission standards for 
automobile refinish coatings, emission standards for architectural 
coatings, and one additional EPA promulgated control measure for the 
Trenton nonattainment area, the national emission standard for benzene 
waste water operations at refineries. When added to those control 
measures already included in New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plans, these 
measures will result in sufficient VOC emission reductions to achieve 
the rate of progress required by the CAA.

VI. Administrative Requirements

    In order to meet the requirement of section 182(b)(1) of the Act, 
the proposed FIP for New Jersey relies on the VOC emission reductions 
which will result from the implementation of four national control 
programs, each of which has already been adopted by EPA. The control 
measures are:

    Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-ignition Engines, 40 CFR 
Part 90--adopted, July 3, 1995 (60 FR 34581);
    National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for 
Automobile Refinish Coatings, 40 CFR Part 59--adopted, September 11, 
1998 (63 FR 48806);
    National Volatile Organic Compounds Emission Standards for 
Architectural Coatings, 40 CFR Part 59--adopted, September 11, 1998 
(63 FR 48848), and
    National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations, 40 CFR 
Part 61--adopted January 7, 1993 (58 FR 3072).

With these four control measures, the New Jersey FIP will be able to 
make up the emission reduction shortfall in the disapproved New Jersey 
15 Percent ROP Plans without imposing any new regulatory burdens, since 
these regulations have already been adopted and are currently 
applicable nationally. These measures will expeditiously achieve the 
reductions with the least disruption and cost to the general public 
without the need for developing, proposing and adopting additional 
individual regulations for other source categories.

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of Executive Order 
12866 to prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). The Executive 
Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely 
to result in a rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy 
of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal 
governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or 
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; 
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the executive order.
    Since this FIP rulemaking will not add to or change any of the 
requirements of the previously promulgated rules, including record 
keeping or reporting, and will not result in any additional costs, this 
FIP rulemaking is not ``significant'' under Executive Order 12866 and 
it is therefore not subject to the requirements of the Executive Order. 
Due to potential novel policy issues this action is being sent to OMB 
for review.

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is economically 
significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) for which 
the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
    Since the FIP is not adding any additional economic burden, and 
since no new requirements are being imposed, this FIP is not 
economically significant under Executive Order 12866. The FIP also does 
not impose any new requirements that address any risk which may have a 
disproportional effect on children, and, as a result Executive Order 
13045 is not applicable.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. It does not create a mandate 
on tribal governments, nor imposes any enforceable duties on

[[Page 3473]]

these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of 
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA), requires the EPA to give special consideration to the 
effect of Federal regulations on small entities and to consider 
regulatory options that might mitigate any such impacts. The EPA is 
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis, including 
consideration of regulatory options for reducing any significant 
impacts, unless the Agency determines that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of analyzing whether the proposed FIP will have 
``a significant economic impact,'' EPA assumes that sources subject to 
the previously adopted rules are complying with them. The appropriate 
inquiry then is whether the terms of EPA's proposed FIP would impose a 
significant economic impact beyond that already imposed by the terms of 
the existing rules. The proposed FIP does not change the nature of the 
already applicable rule requirements in any way. There should, 
therefore, be no additional burden on regulated sources because they 
are already legally required to comply with the relevant federal rules. 
When EPA originally promulgated the four federal measures it is relying 
on in this FIP, EPA fully complied with the applicable provisions of 
the RFA and SBREFA with respect to small entities. Because today's 
action neither proposes any additional specific regulatory 
requirements, nor obligates EPA to propose requirements necessarily 
applicable to small entities, it will not, by itself have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    For these reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), EPA certifies that 
today's proposed FIP will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of those terms 
for RFA purposes.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, 
the 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 the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 
year. Under section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-effective 
and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule and is consistent within statutory requirements. Section 203 
requires the EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any 
small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the 
rule.
    Since this FIP rulemaking will not add to or change any of the 
requirements, including record keeping or reporting and will not result 
in any additional costs, it will not result in expenditures by state, 
local, and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or 
more in any one year. Thus, this FIP is not subject to the requirements 
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (the NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires the 
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when the EPA 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    Since this FIP does not create any new technical standards, no 
analysis under the NTTAA is required. It should be noted, however, that 
EPA performed an analysis under the NTTAA when it promulgated the final 
Architectural Coatings and Automobile Refinish rules which were subject 
to the NTTAA when promulgated. (See 63 FR 48876 and 63 FR 48814.) EPA 
determined that the methods proposed by EPA at that time were more 
appropriate than any of the analyzed alternatives.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The individual control measures that make up this FIP have 
information collection requirements which were submitted to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) when the underlying measures were 
published. All Paperwork Reduction Act requirements were complied with 
at that time. There are no additional information collection 
requirements in this proposed FIP and therefore, submittal of this 
action to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
is not required.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: January 15, 1999
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart FF--New Jersey

    2. Subpart FF is proposed to be amended by adding new section 
52.1585 to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1585  Ozone 15 Percent ROP Federal Implementation Plan

    (a) The volatile organic compound emission reductions from the 
following control measures are used towards meeting the rate of 
progress requirements of the 15 percent plans.
    (1) New York, Northern New Jersey, Long Island nonattainment area:
    (i) Title 40, ``Part 90--Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-
Ignition Engines,''
    (ii) Title 40, Part 59, Subpart B--``National Volatile Organic 
Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinishing Coatings,''
    (iii) Title 40, Part 59, Subpart D--``National Volatile Organic 
Compound Emission Standards For Architectural Coatings,'' and
    (2) Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton nonattainment area: Title 40, 
``Part 90--Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines,''
    (i) Title 40, Part 59, Subpart B--``National Volatile Organic 
Compound

[[Page 3474]]

Emission Standards for Automobile Refinishing Coatings,''
    (ii) Title 40, Part 59, Subpart D--``National Volatile Organic 
Compound Emission Standards For Architectural Coatings,'' and
    (iii) Title 40, Part 61, Subpart FF--``National Emission Standard 
for Benzene Waste Operations.''
    (b) Pursuant to the federal planning authority in section 110(c) of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator finds that the applicable 
implementation plans for the New Jersey portions of the New York, 
Northern New Jersey, Long Island nonattainment area, and the 
Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton nonattainment area demonstrate the 15 
percent VOC rate of progress required under section 182(b)(1)(A)(1) of 
the CAA.

[FR Doc. 99-1482 Filed 1-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P