[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48847-48850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23220]



[[Page 48847]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region 2 Docket No. NJ48-229, FRL-7057-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey 
Reasonably Available Control Measure Analysis and Additional Ozone 
Control Measures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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 one-hour 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 one-hour national ambient air quality standard for ozone. 
The SIP revision applies to 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. The intended 
effect of this action is to propose approval of programs required by 
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2001.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: Raymond Werner, Chief, 
Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
    Copies of the New Jersey submittal are available at the following 
addresses for inspection during normal business hours:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 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 Pollution Control, 401 East State 
Street, CN027, Trenton, New Jersey 08625

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Truchan of the Air Programs 
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New 
York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY 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 non-TCM 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 one-hour 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 
one-hour ozone nonattainment areas.
    With respect to additional control measures designed to meet the 
one-hour 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 ( NOX) needed 
to attain the one-hour ozone standard. New Jersey will be taking 
actions to adopt these measures separately from this SIP revision.
    The submittal also includes an assessment of the progress New 
Jersey has made in attaining the one-hour 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 mid-course review of its attainment status, EPA has 
determined that several more years of monitored data and implementation 
of the Regional NOX Program are needed before a true mid-
course review of the attainment demonstration can be made. Therefore, 
EPA is not acting on the mid-course review at this time and expects New 
Jersey to supplement the existing analysis after further emission 
reductions have accrued.

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 Mid-Course 
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 areas--the 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 long-term 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 non-TCM 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 non-mobile 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 
NOX was 0.0 tons/day to 2.054 tons/day in the New Jersey 
portion of the Northern New Jersey NAA and from 0.0 tons/day to 1.10 
tons/day in the New Jersey portion of the Trenton NAA. In addition, the 
State also found that implementing certain measures is not cost 
effective. These TCMs are not reasonably available at this time, nor 
may they be able to generate significant emission reductions by the 
attainment date. However, over a longer period some of them may prove 
to be reasonable, particularly with respect to an eight-hour ozone 
standard with an attainment date further into the future.
    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 ten-year 
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 
NOX with an estimated cost per ton of $1.78 million. 
However, it is important to note that this program would provide many 
other environmental and public benefits and costs should not be judged 
on air quality alone. This 10 year program can not be phased in faster 
and fully implemented by the attainment date for the two NAAs. Thus, it 
is not anticipated to advance the attainment dates in the New Jersey 
NAAs.
    The estimated emissions benefits in 2006 for the State Development 
and Redevelopment Plan are approximately 0.452 ton per/day of VOCs and 
NOX. The cost per ton was not quantifiable in the scope of 
this analysis. In addition, the State plan is a voluntary plan and has 
no force of law under municipal home rule. This limits EPA's ability to 
enforce such a program as part of a SIP. Like the Open Space 
Preservation Program, this program would provide many other 
environmental and public benefits and costs should not be judged on air 
quality alone. Furthermore, long lead times would be required before 
this measure could be effective on a regional scale and it is not 
anticipated to advance the attainment dates in the New Jersey 
nonattainment areas.
2. Consideration and Implementation of Stationary Source, Area Source, 
and Other Non-TCM Measures
    The NJDEP sorted the projected attainment year VOC and 
NOX emission inventories (2005 for the Trenton NAA and 2007 
for the Northern New Jersey NAA) by size of each source category for 
each nonattainment area. Considering VOC and NOX emissions 
separately, New Jersey examined all source categories with emissions of 
5 tons per day or greater for potential application of new control 
measures. NJDEP evaluated 29 VOC source categories and 25 
NOX source categories. The analysis for feasibility of 
potential controls for

[[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 NOX in 2004 
for the Trenton NAA and 7.3 tons per day of VOC and 3.3 tons per day of 
NOX in 2006 for the Northern New Jersey NAA. In order to 
assess whether these emission reductions would advance the attainment 
date for each area, New Jersey compared these potential emission 
reductions to the emission reductions which are projected to occur in 
New Jersey in the year before the attainment year from the adopted 
control measures and the additional control measures identified in this 
SIP revision, (i.e, compare these reductions to the reductions 
projected for 2004 for the Trenton NAA and reductions projected for 
2006 for the Northern New Jersey NAA). For both nonattainment areas, 
the combined benefit from all the potential control measures is less 
than the emission reductions which will be occurring in the year before 
the attainment year. Therefore, no TCM or other measure, either 
singularly or combined, has been identified which could advance the 
attainment dates of either area and be considered RACM.
    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 
eight-hour 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 
one-hour 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 one-hour ozone attainment 
demonstrations, EPA determined that additional emission reductions were 
needed for the two severe nonattainment areas in order to attain the 
one-hour 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             NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton.......              62               3
New York, Northern New Jersey, Long                   85               7
 Island.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 one-hour 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.
NOX Control Measures
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 one-hour ozone standard in the 
multi-state 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 NOX inventories, the State has determined and EPA agrees 
that the entire New York, Northern New Jersey, Long Island Area NAA 
will have sufficient emission reductions in both VOC and NOX 
to attain the one-hour ozone standard. In the Philadelphia, Wilmington, 
Trenton NAA, excess NOX emission reductions will need to be 
substituted for VOC reductions in order to achieve the VOC emission 
reduction target. Implementation of the OTC measures statewide will 
result in additional emission reductions that will be beneficial 
towards attaining the ozone standard in the Philadelphia, Wilmington, 
Trenton NAA. See Table 2 for estimated emission reductions and required 
additional emission reductions for the entire nonattainment area.

[[Page 48850]]



                   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)       NOX       VOC (tpd)    NOX (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial and Consumer Products............................            9  ...........           26  ...........
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings...........           19  ...........           42  ...........
Solvent Cleaning Operations.................................           20  ...........            7  ...........
Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Operations..........            6  ...........           20  ...........
Portable Fuel Containers....................................            5  ...........           25  ...........
Selected Stationary Sources of NOX Reductions...............  ...........            6  ...........           22
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    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 one-hour 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 pre-existing 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 104-4). 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. 01-23220 Filed 9-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P