You are on page 1of 4

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No.

214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 67345

into these zones is prohibited except as Pollution Control District’s (ICAPCD) comments, no further activity is
authorized by the Captain of the Port portion of the California State planned. For further information, please
Miami or his designated representative. Implementation Plan (SIP). These see the direct final action.
Other vessels such as pilot boats, cruise revisions concern volatile organic Dated: September 30, 2002.
ship tenders, tug boats and contracted compound (VOC) emissions from Soil Keith Takata,
security vessels may assist the Coast Decontamination Operations, Organic
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Guard Captain of the Port under the Solvent Degreasing Operations and
direction of his designated Organic Solvents. We are proposing to [FR Doc. 02–28078 Filed 11–4–02; 8:45 am]
representative by monitoring these approve local rules to regulate these BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

zones strictly to advise mariners of the emission sources under the Clean Air
restrictions. The Captain of the Port will Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
notify the public via Marine Safety Act).
AGENCY
Radio Broadcast on VHF Marine Band DATES: Any comments on this proposal
Radio, Channel 13 (156.65 MHz) when must arrive by December 5, 2002. 40 CFR Part 52
the security zones are being enforced.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy [Region II Docket No. NJ54–246, FRL–7404–
(3) Persons desiring to enter or transit
the area of the security zone may Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR– 1]
contact the Captain of the Port on VHF 4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Approval and Promulgation of
Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
MHz) to seek permission to transit the
You can inspect copies of the Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection
area. If permission is granted, all
submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s and Maintenance Program
persons and vessels must comply with
technical support documents (TSDs) at
the instructions of the Captain of the AGENCY: Environmental Protection
our Region IX office during normal
Port or his or her designated Agency (EPA).
business hours. You may also see copies
representative. ACTION: Proposed rule.
of the submitted SIP revisions at the
(4) The Captain of the Port Miami may
following locations: SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
waive any of the requirements of this
subpart for any vessel upon finding that California Air Resources Board, a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
the vessel or class of vessel, operational Stationary Source Division, Rule revision submitted by New Jersey,
conditions, or other circumstances are Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, including revisions to the State’s
such that application of this subpart is Sacramento, CA 95814. enhanced motor vehicle inspection and
unnecessary or impractical for the Imperial County APCD, 150 South 9th maintenance (I/M) program. This
purpose of port security, safety or Street, El Centro, CA 92243–2850 revision updates New Jersey’s enhanced
environmental safety. A copy of the rule may also be I/M performance standard modeling to
(c) Definition. As used in this section, available via the Internet at http:// reflect the State’s plan to extend the
cruise ship means a passenger vessel www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. current new vehicle inspection
greater than 100 feet in length and over Please be advised that this is not an EPA exemption from one inspection cycle (
100 gross tons that is authorized to carry website and may not contain the same 2 years) to two inspection cycles (4
more than 12 passengers for hire making version of the rule that was submitted years). This evaluation is necessary for
voyages lasting more than 24 hours, to EPA. New Jersey to demonstrate that the
except for a ferry. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: proposed changes to the enhanced I/M
(d) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C. Terry McCall, EPA Region IX, (415) program will not impact the State’s
1231 and 50 U.S.C. 191, the authority 972–3976. ability to continue to meet its enhanced
for this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This I/M emission reduction goals for current
Dated: October 16, 2002. proposal addresses the following local and future years. EPA is proposing
rules: ICAPCD Rules 412, 413 and 417. approval of New Jersey’s plan to extend
J.A. Watson, IV,
In the Rules and Regulations section of the new car emission inspection
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
this Federal Register, we are approving exemption, and the State’s supporting
Port Miami.
these local rules in a direct final action revised performance standard modeling,
[FR Doc. 02–28089 Filed 11–4–02; 8:45 am]
without prior proposal because we which demonstrates that the enhanced
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
believe these SIP revisions are not I/M program continues to meet EPA’s
controversial. If we receive adverse low enhanced performance standard.
comments, however, we will publish a DATES: Comments must be received on
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION or before December 5, 2002. Public
AGENCY timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule and address the comments in comments on this action are requested
40 CFR Part 52 subsequent action based on this and will be considered before taking
proposed rule. Please note that if we final action.
[CA242–0373b; FRL–7395–9] receive adverse comment on an ADDRESSES: All comments should be
amendment, paragraph, or section of addressed to Raymond Werner, Branch
Revisions to the California State
this rule and if that provision may be Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Implementation Plan, Imperial County
severed from the remainder of the rule, Environmental Protection Agency, 290
Air Pollution Control District
we may adopt as final those provisions Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
AGENCY: Environmental Protection of the rule that are not the subject of an York 10007–1866.
Agency (EPA). adverse comment. Copies of the documents relevant to
ACTION: Proposed rule. We do not plan to open a second this action are available for public
comment period, so anyone interested inspection during normal business
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve in commenting should do so at this hours at the following locations:
revisions to the Imperial County Air time. If we do not receive adverse Environmental Protection Agency,

VerDate 0ct<31>2002 14:53 Nov 04, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM 05NOP1
67346 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, exemption was enacted by New Jersey nitrogen (NOX) as modeled for years
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, on July 1, 2002 as Pub. L. 2002, Chapter 2002, 2005, and 2007, and carbon
New York 10007–1866, and New Jersey 34, and supercedes the current emission monoxide (CO) as modeled for the year
Department of Environmental inspection test frequency set forth in 2002.
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality New Jersey’s I/M rules. The new
3. Can EPA Approve Exemptions for
Planning, 401 East State Street, CN027, legislation requires any new vehicle of
New Vehicles?
Trenton, New Jersey 08625. model year 2000 and newer to be
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: exempt from the emission inspection for The Clean Air Act outlines the
Kenneth M. Champagne, Air Programs 4 years, and thereafter inspected every minimum elements required in the
Branch, Environmental Protection 2 years, however implementation of this design of I/M programs, however model
Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New new legislation is contingent upon year coverage is not defined. EPA
York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 637– approval by EPA. New Jersey’s goal is to fulfilled its statutory requirement in this
4249. begin implementation of the new regard by designing performance
vehicle emission inspection exemption standards that addressed these
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
on January 1, 2003. minimum elements. If a state designs a
Table of Contents Also included as a part of the August program which gets the same or better
20, 2002 submittal, New Jersey revised emission reductions as the performance
1. Background
2. What Is the Purpose and Content of New its performance standard modeling to standard it is considered to have met the
Jersey’s Submittal? demonstrate that the new vehicle I/M requirements in the Clean Air Act.
3. Can EPA Approve Exemptions for New emission inspection exemption would EPA’s I/M regulations at 40 CFR
Vehicles? not impact the State’s ability to continue 51.356(a)(5) state that ‘‘special
4. What Is Performance Standard Modeling? to meet its enhanced I/M emission exemption may be permitted for certain
5. How Has New Jersey Modeled and Met the reduction goals. To ensure that the subject vehicles provided a
Performance Standard? performance standard modeling reflects demonstration is made that the
6. Summary of Conclusions and Proposed the latest design assumptions for the performance standard will be met.’’
Action Accordingly, exemption of model years
State’s I/M program, this revised
7. Administrative Requirements
performance standard modeling also from emission testing is permissible as
includes major proposed program long as the state can demonstrate that
1. Background
changes contained in New Jersey’s April the program meets the performance
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 24, 2002 proposed SIP revision standard for I/M programs as contained
1990 (the Clean Air Act) require certain (hereinafter referred to as the April 24, in 40 CFR 51.351 and 51.352. Generally,
states to implement an enhanced I/M 2002 submittal). The major changes the exemption of newer model year
program to detect gasoline-fueled motor included are: (1) Removal of the vehicles from emission testing results in
vehicles which exhibit excessive requirements for implementation of the a relatively small loss in emission
emissions of certain air pollutants. The evaporative pressure and purge tests, (2) benefit since newer vehicles are less
enhanced I/M program is intended to removal of the requirements for likely to have excess emissions due to
help states meet federal health-based implementation of the existing final malfunctions which would be
national ambient air quality standards standards for the ASM5015 exhaust test discoverable through an I/M program.
(NAAQS) for ozone and carbon to allow for continued use of the initial
monoxide by requiring vehicles with 4. What Is Performance Standard
standards, (3) implementation of an Modeling?
excess emissions to have their emissions OBD testing component for 1996 and
control systems repaired. New Jersey is newer vehicles, and (4) an exemption of EPA included provisions for a model
required to have an enhanced I/M gasoline-fueled vehicles registered as program, known as the performance
program pursuant to the Clean Air Act, school buses from the enhanced I/M standard, in the requirements
and consequently has adopted, and is program (however, these vehicles will established for enhanced I/M programs.
implementing an enhanced I/M program be inspected by the State’s school bus The features of the enhanced I/M
state-wide as of December 13, 1999. On inspection unit biannually using a 2500 performance standard model program
January 22, 2002, EPA fully approved RPM test). The State appropriately are used to generate the minimum
New Jersey’s enhanced I/M program, included the proposed I/M program performance target that a state must
including the State’s performance design changes from the April 24, 2002 meet. When programmed into EPA’s
standard modeling, as meeting the submittal in the revised modeling since mobile source emission factor model
applicable requirements of the Clean Air they will, if adopted, impact the overall (the MOBILE model), these features
Act. Additional information on EPA’s emission reduction potential of the I/M produce target emission factors, in
final approval of New Jersey’s enhanced program. However, EPA is not taking grams per mile of vehicle travel, which
I/M program can be found in the action on the proposed changes a state’s enhanced I/M program must
January 22, 2002 Federal Register (67 included in the April 24, 2002 submittal not exceed to be deemed minimally
FR 2811). in this proposed rulemaking. EPA will acceptable for purposes of SIP approval.
take formal rulemaking action on the The performance standard provides a
2. What Is the Purpose and Content of gauge by which EPA can evaluate the
April 24, 2002 submittal in a separate
New Jersey’s Submittal? adequacy and effectiveness of each
action at a later date.
New Jersey’s August 20, 2002 New Jersey’s revised performance state’s enhanced I/M program. As such,
proposed SIP revision submittal standard modeling demonstrates that states are required to demonstrate that
(hereinafter referred to as the August 20, the State’s enhanced I/M program, their enhanced I/M programs achieve
2002 submittal) modifies the State’s including the proposed program applicable area-wide emission levels for
enhanced I/M program to extend the changes, successfully meets and exceeds the pollutants of interest that are equal
current new vehicle emission inspection EPA’s low enhanced I/M program to, or lower than, those which would be
exemption from one inspection cycle (2 performance standard developed for all realized by the implementation of the
years) to two inspection cycles (4 years). three criteria pollutants: (volatile performance standard model program.
This new vehicle emission inspection organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of However, the combination of program

VerDate 0ct<31>2002 14:53 Nov 04, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM 05NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 67347

features which make up the included in the modeling the proposed Jersey has completed its performance
performance standard does not changes in the April 24, 2002 submittal standard modeling using the most
necessarily constitute a recommended to ensure that the modeling reflects the current model MOBILE6, which was
program design. The use of the latest design assumptions for the State’s released on January 29, 2002 ( 67 FR
performance standard approach allows I/M program. In the August 20, 2002 4254). During technical review of the
EPA to develop a performance standard submittal, New Jersey’s intent was to August 20, 2002 submittal, EPA
based on certain statutory features and show through modeling that its identified several minor issues with the
that also provides states with maximum enhanced I/M program, including the State’s modeling. EPA worked closely
flexibility to design I/M programs to latest design changes, meets or exceeds with New Jersey on these issues, and
meet local needs. the low enhanced performance concluded that the minor changes to the
standard, expressed as emission levels modeling will not negatively impact the
5. How Has New Jersey Modeled and
in program area-wide average grams per State’s modeling demonstration. New
Met the Performance Standard?
vehicle mile (gpm). New Jersey is Jersey subsequently sent a letter to EPA
To comply with the requirements of required to demonstrate that its September 20, 2002 addressing the
the Clean Air Act, New Jersey submitted enhanced I/M program is able to issues in question. However, EPA
modeling to EPA on August 20, 2001 maintain the same or better level of identified an additional issue with the
which demonstrated that the State’s emission reductions as EPA’s low modeling after this letter had been sent.
enhanced I/M program met EPA’s low enhanced performance standard through EPA re-ran the State’s modeling with
enhanced performance standard. On its attainment deadlines for the the modified MOBILE6 data inputs, and
January 22, 2002, EPA fully approved applicable NAAQS standards. For the the results show that this minor change
New Jersey’s enhanced I/M program, ozone precursors, VOC and NOX, the will not affect New Jersey’s performance
including the State’s performance State needs to meet the performance modeling demonstration. While these
standard modeling, as meeting the standard through its attainment changes will not impact the outcome of
applicable requirements of the Clean Air deadlines of 2005 and 2007. Although
the modeling exercise, that is the State
Act. Additional information on EPA’s New Jersey is in attainment for all of its
still passes the performance standard
final approval of New Jersey’s previously designated CO
test, EPA has requested that all minor
performance standard modeling can be nonattainment areas (60 FR 62741 and
issues be addressed in the State’s final
found in the January 22, 2002 Federal 67 FR 54574 ), the State is still required
SIP revision submittal.
Register (67 FR 2811). to include CO in its performance
Although New Jersey recently standard modeling because the The following table shows the results
submitted performance standard maintenance plan for the Northeastern of New Jersey’s revised performance
modeling for its enhanced I/M program, New Jersey CO nonattainment area standard modeling, including the re-
and EPA subsequently approved it, the relies upon the benefits from the modeled results contained in New
State is required to revise its enhanced I/M program. Thus, the State Jersey’s September 20, 2002 letter and
performance standard modeling to needs to meet the performance standard EPA’s re-run of the State’s modeling
demonstrate that the proposed changes for CO in its 2002 attainment year. with the modified MOBILE6 data
to the approved program, such as the EPA’s enhanced I/M final rule inputs. Further details on New Jersey’s
new vehicle emission inspection requires that equivalency to the revised performance standard modeling
exemption, will not impact the performance standard be demonstrated can be found in the Technical Support
effectiveness of the overall program. As using the most current version of EPA’s Document prepared for this rulemaking
previously stated, New Jersey also mobile source emission model. New action.

TABLE 1.—MODELING RESULTS
Program type VOC (gpm) NOX (gpm) CO (gpm)

EPA Low Enhanced Performance Standard 2002 Evaluation Year ....................................................... 1.178 1.810 22.572
New Jersey Program 2002 Evaluation Year ........................................................................................... 1.152 1.745 22.398
New Jersey Program 2005 Evaluation Year ........................................................................................... 0.964 1.416 N/A*
New Jersey Program 2007 Evaluation Year ........................................................................................... 0.817 1.114 N/A*
The 2005 and 2007 modeling runs were not required to include CO since the attainment date (2002) has passed.

Based on New Jersey’s modeling action concurrently with the state’s EPA is proposing to approve New
analysis, EPA agrees that the State’s procedures for amending its regulations. Jersey’s I/M SIP revision submitted on
enhanced I/M program, including the If the proposed revision is substantially August 20, 2002. This revision updates
proposed program changes, successfully changed in areas other than those New Jersey’s enhanced I/M performance
meets and exceeds EPA’s low enhanced identified in this document, EPA will standard modeling to reflect the State’s
I/M program performance standard for evaluate those changes and may publish plan to extend the current new vehicle
all three criteria pollutants, VOC and another notice of proposed rulemaking. inspection exemption from one
NOX as modeled for years 2002, 2005, If no substantial changes are made other inspection cycle ( 2 years) to two
and 2007, and CO as modeled for the than those areas cited in this document, inspection cycles (4 years). New Jersey
year 2002. EPA will publish a final rulemaking on has demonstrated that its enhanced I/M
6. Summary of Conclusions and the revisions. The final rulemaking program with the new vehicle emission
Proposed Action action by EPA will occur only after the inspection exemption, including other
SIP revision has been adopted by New proposed program design changes,
This revision is being proposed under Jersey and submitted formally to EPA continues to meet EPA’s low enhanced
a procedure called parallel processing, for incorporation into the SIP. performance standard.
whereby EPA proposes rulemaking

VerDate 0ct<31>2002 16:41 Nov 04, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM 05NOP1
67348 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

7. Administrative Requirements Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. approval is set forth in the direct final
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 272 note) do not apply. As required by rule. If no adverse comments are
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 received in response to this action, no
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing further activity is contemplated. If EPA
action’’ and therefore is not subject to this proposed rule, EPA has taken the receives adverse comments, the direct
review by the Office of Management and necessary steps to eliminate drafting final rule will be withdrawn and all
Budget. This proposed action merely errors and ambiguity, minimize public comments received will be
proposes to approve state law as potential litigation, and provide a clear addressed in a subsequent final rule
meeting federal requirements and legal standard for affected conduct. EPA based on this proposed rule. The EPA
imposes no additional requirements has complied with Executive Order will not institute a second comment
beyond those imposed by state law. 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by period on this document. Any parties
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies examining the takings implications of interested in commenting on this
that this proposed rule will not have a the rule in accordance with the document should do so at this time.
significant economic impact on a ‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental DATES: Written comments must be
substantial number of small entities Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk received on or before December 5, 2002.
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 and Avoidance of Unanticipated ADDRESSES: Written comments should
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule Takings’’ issued under the executive be addressed to Joydeb Majumder, at the
proposes to approve pre-existing order. This proposed rule does not EPA Regional Office listed below. The
requirements under state law and does impose an information collection interested persons wanting to examine
not impose any additional enforceable burden under the provisions of the these documents should make an
duty beyond that required by state law, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 appointment with the appropriate office
it does not contain any unfunded U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
mandate or significantly or uniquely List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Copies of the documents relative to this
affect small governments, as described action are available for public
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Environmental protection, Air
inspection during normal business
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). This proposed pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
hours at the following locations: EPA
rule also does not have a substantial Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
Region 4, Air Toxics and Monitoring
direct effect on one or more Indian dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
Branch, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
tribes, on the relationship between the recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,
Federal Government and Indian tribes, organic compounds.
Georgia 30303–8960.
or on the distribution of power and Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
responsibilities between the Federal Dated: October 28, 2002. Joydeb Majumder at (404) 562–9121 or
Government and Indian tribes, as William J. Muszynski, Michele Notarianni at (404) 562–9031.
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 2. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will
[FR Doc. 02–28076 Filed 11–4–02; 8:45 am] additional information see the direct
it have substantial direct effects on the
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P final rule which is published in the
States, on the relationship between the
Final Rules Section of this Federal
national government and the States, or
Register.
on the distribution of power and ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
responsibilities among the various Dated: October 24, 2002.
AGENCY
levels of government, as specified in A. Stanley Meiburg,
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 40 CFR Part 62 Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
August 10, 1999), because it merely [FR Doc. 02–28080 Filed 11–4–02; 8:45 am]
proposes to approve a state rule [MS–200301(b); FRL–7404–3]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
implementing a federal standard, and
Approval and Promulgation of State
does not alter the relationship or the
Plan for Designated Facilities and
distribution of power and FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Pollutants; State of Mississippi
responsibilities established in the Clean COMMISSION
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not AGENCY: Environmental Protection
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR Agency (EPA). 47 CFR Part 90
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not ACTION: Proposed rule.
economically significant. [WT Docket No. 02–285; FCC 02–255; RM–
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 10077]
role is to approve state choices, the small Municipal Waste Combustion
Frequency Coordination of Public
provided that they meet the criteria of (MWC) units section 111(d) negative
Safety Frequencies in the Private Land
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the declaration submitted by the State of
Mobile Radio Below 470 MHz Band
absence of a prior existing requirement Mississippi. This negative declaration
for the State to use voluntary consensus certifies that small MWC units subject to AGENCY: Federal Communications
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority the requirements of section 111(d) and Commission.
to disapprove a SIP submission for 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) do not ACTION: Proposed rule.
failure to use VCS. It would thus be exist in Mississippi.
inconsistent with applicable law for In the Final Rules Section of this SUMMARY: In this document the Federal
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, Federal Register, the EPA is approving Communications Commission
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission the State’s submittal as a direct final (Commission) seeks comment on
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of rule without prior proposal because the whether to modify the frequency
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the Agency views this as a noncontroversial coordination procedures for Public
requirements of section 12(d) of the submittal and anticipates no adverse Safety Pool frequencies in the Private
National Technology Transfer and comments. A detailed rationale for the Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) Services

VerDate 0ct<31>2002 14:53 Nov 04, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM 05NOP1