Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Volatile Organic Compounds for the State of New Jersey

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region II Docket No. NJ17-1-166; FRL-5809-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Reasonably

Available Control Technology for Volatile Organic Compounds for the

State of New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes approval of

a request from New Jersey to revise its State Implementation Plan to

incorporate revisions to Subchapter 16 ``Control and Prohibition of Air

Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds.'' These revisions relate to

the control of volatile organic compounds from major stationary sources

not subject to control techniques guidelines. The intended effect is to

reduce the emissions of volatile organic compounds and thereby reduce

ozone concentrations in the lower atmosphere. EPA proposes to find that

the State has met the Clean Air Act requirement to adopt reasonably

available control technology for non-CTG major sources.

EPA also proposes approval of revisions to Subchapter 8 ``Permits

and Certificates,'' Subchapter 17 ``Control and Prohibition of Air

Pollution by Toxic Substances,'' Subchapter 23 ``Prevention of Air

Pollution From Architectural Coatings and Consumer Products'' and

Subchapter 25 ``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Vehicular

Fuels,'' and Air Test Method 3--Sampling and Analytical Procedures for

the Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds from Source Operations

(Title 7, Chapter 27B, Subchapter 3).

Revisions to these regulations only involve administrative changes

made to insure consistency with Subchapter 16 revisions. This proposal

would revise the State Implementation Plan so that it contains the most

current versions of the State regulations.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: Ronald J. Borsellino,

Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region II

Office, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.

Copies of the State submittal(s) are available at the following

addresses for inspection during normal business hours:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Air

Quality Management, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, 401 East State

Street, CN418, Trenton, New Jersey 08625

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Truchan or Raymond K. Forde,

Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway,

25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (Act) as amended in 1990 sets forth a number of

requirements that states with areas designated as nonattainment for

ozone must satisfy and sets forth a timetable for satisfying these Act

requirements (section 182). These requirements are further explained in

the General Preamble to the Act (57 FR 13513), which was published on

April 16, 1992.

Under section 182(b)(2) of the Act, nonattainment areas classified

as moderate or above are required to adopt reasonably available control

technology (RACT) rules for volatile organic compound (VOC) sources.

There are three parts to the section 182(b)(2) RACT requirement: (1)

RACT for sources covered by an existing control techniques guideline

(CTG)--i.e., a CTG issued prior to the enactment of the 1990

Amendments; (2) RACT for sources covered by a post-enactment CTG; and

(3) all major sources not covered by a CTG (non-CTG major sources).

This requirement also applies to all areas within the Ozone Transport

Region. The EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation that

a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control

technology that is reasonably available considering technological and

economic feasibility (44 FR 53762; September 17, 1979).

New Jersey is part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), therefore,

the section 182(b)(2) RACT requirements are applicable to sources

throughout the State. The schedule for implementing the RACT rules in

an OTR require final installation of the actual VOC controls by May 31,

1995 on those sources for which installation by that date is

practicable.

New Jersey's VOC regulation, Subchapter 16, ``Control and

Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds,'' of

Chapter 27, Title 7 of the New Jersey Administrative Code, was

previously approved by EPA as fulfilling the requirement to address all

source categories covered by a pre-enactment CTG document (59 FR 17933,

April 15, 1994). Since enactment of the Clean Air Act amendments, EPA

has published three CTGs controlling synthetic organic chemical

manufacturing industry (SOCMI) distillation operations, SOCMI reactor

operations, and wood furniture manufacturing operations. New Jersey's

previously approved Subchapter 16 regulates both SOCMI operations under

the process source gases provisions, and wood furniture under the

surface coating provisions. A fourth CTG was

[[Page 17767]]

published on August 27, 1996 for shipbuilding and repair, however

regulations for this CTG are not due until August 27, 1997.

This proposed action addresses the requirement to regulate non-CTG

major sources of VOC. The major source definition depends on the

classification of the nonattainment area and whether the area is in the

OTR (``major'' as defined in section 302, section 182(c), (d), and (e),

and section 184(b)). For areas in an OTR other than those areas

designated severe nonattainment, the definition of major VOC source is

any source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 tons per

year. In a severe nonattainment area, the definition of a major VOC

source is any source that emits or has the potential to emit at least

25 tons per year.

II. State Submittals

On November 15, 1993, the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department

of Environmental Protection and Energy submitted a State Implementation

Plan revision, part of which contained adopted revisions to Subchapter

16, ``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic

Compounds,'' of Chapter 27, Title 7 of the New Jersey Administrative

Code, effective December 20, 1993. This was intended to fulfill the

non-CTG major source requirement of the Act. EPA determined that the

November 15, 1993 submittal was complete on December 29, 1993. As of

November 15, 1993 New Jersey only adopted a portion of the proposal

which involved Section 16.1 definitions and Section 16.17 which

requires major sources of VOCs not elsewhere regulated in Subchapter 16

to implement RACT (Generic RACT).

On June 21, 1996, the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) submitted a State Implementation Plan

revision which contained two revisions to Subchapter 16 and two

``Administrative Changes and Corrections'' to Subchapter 16. EPA is

proposing action on all changes which have occurred in Subchapter 16

(effective March 2, 1992) since EPA's last approval on April 15, 1994

(59 FR 1994). This includes the following versions of Subchapter 16

with effective dates of December 20, 1993, June 20, 1994, December 5,

1994, May 15, 1995, and July 17, 1995. It should be noted that several

new sections have been added to Subchapter 16 and this has necessitated

recodifying several sections. The new section numbering will be used.

It should also be noted that final approval of this State

Implementation Plan revision will remove the requirement to adopt a

federal implementation plan. The need for a federal implementation plan

resulted from EPA's finding on January 15, 1993 that New Jersey had

failed to submit a complete State Implementation Plan revision as

required by the Act on November 15, 1992.

III. Findings

A. Generic RACT Provisions

Section 16.1 Definitions

New Jersey revised section 16.1 to include appropriate definitions

for terms used in the new provisions. These are generally consistent

with EPA guidance. The following new terms are important in

understanding the generic RACT provisions which have been added to

Subchapter 16: federally enforceable, potential to emit, State

Implementation Plan and major VOC facility.

1. Federally enforceable--Section 16.1's definition for federally

enforceable provides a definition of what limitations and conditions

can be considered enforceable by the EPA. It contains a list of

limitations and conditions, such as EPA's new source performance

standards (40 CFR Part 60), national emission standards for hazardous

air pollutants (40 CFR Part 61), and provisions of the applicable State

Implementation Plan. In addition, the State includes ``any permit or

order issued pursuant to the Air Pollution Control Act, N.J.S.A. 26:2C-

1 et seq., of this chapter.'' This part of the definition is acceptable

only in so far as it refers to permits that are issued pursuant to

programs approved as part of the State Implementation Plan, i.e.

Subchapter 8 which is the only State mechanism for issuing permits to

air pollution sources. EPA is proposing approval of this definition.

2. Potential to emit--Section 16.1's definition for potential to

emit provides direction on how to determine a source's or facility's

potential to emit which is used to determine whether a source is

subject to given requirements. It is based on the maximum capacity of a

source or facility operating 8760 hours a year unless there are any

federally enforceable limitations in place limiting the hours of

operation. This definition is consistent with EPA's guidance and

policy. EPA is proposing approval of this definition.

3. State Implementation Plan--Section 16.1's definition for State

Implementation Plan refers to plans which have been prepared by the

State and approved by EPA pursuant to section 110 of the Act. This

definition is consistent with EPA's guidance and policy. EPA is

proposing approval of this definition.

4. Major VOC facility--Section 16.1 defines a major VOC facility as

any facility with the potential to emit 25 or more tons of VOC per

year. EPA is proposing approval of this definition.

Section 16.17 Facility-Specific VOC Control Requirements

Section 16.17 provides a procedure for establishing VOC control

requirements that represent RACT for a particular process, item of

equipment or source operation that is not specifically regulated by

name elsewhere in Subchapter 16 and is located at a major VOC facility.

This would cover those non-CTG major sources required to be controlled

pursuant to section 182(b)(2). This procedure provides four control

options for meeting RACT:

1. Facility is currently operating controls which collect at least

90 percent of the VOC emissions and prevent from being released at

least 90 percent of the VOCs that were collected; pollution prevention

measures can contribute emission reductions towards meeting these

emission limitations, so long as an equivalent level of emission

reductions is achieved.

2. Facility will be served by controls which collect at least 90

percent of the VOC emissions and prevent from being released at least

90 percent of the VOCs that were collected; pollution prevention

measures can contribute emission reductions towards meeting these

emission limitations, so long as an equivalent level of emission

reductions is achieved.

3. Facility has or will have federally enforceable limits on its

potential to emit restricting it to below 25 tons per year.

4. Facility will develop and have approved an alternative VOC

control plan which represents RACT for that facility.

Sources subject to other provisions in Subchapter 16 may also apply

for an alternative VOC control plan. However, application for an

alternative VOC control plan does not relieve the source from complying

with applicable compliance dates.

In the first two situations listed above, RACT is defined as at

least 90 percent capture of VOC emissions and at least 90 percent

control of the captured VOC emissions. The source must demonstrate that

these limits have been met and provide for adequate recordkeeping which

can demonstrate that the compliance plan has been met. The source must

also have the appropriate permits and certificates. The source

[[Page 17768]]

must be in compliance with these provisions by May 31, 1995. Should a

source use pollution prevention methods to meet this requirement, the

provision requires ``at least the same level of VOC emission

reductions.'' Since the provision is clear that the 90 percent capture

and 90 percent control is the criteria, any compliance plan which does

not meet this criteria will not be consistent with Subchapter 16. EPA

is proposing approval of these provisions.

In the third situation, a facility whose actual emissions of VOCs

in 1990 and each year thereafter has been less than 25 tons per year

including fugitive emissions, may comply by limiting their potential

emissions to less than 25 tons per year. The source must submit and

have approved a compliance plan which demonstrates that these limits

have been met. The source must also have the appropriate permits and

certificates which limit the potential to emit, and provide for

adequate recordkeeping. Without an approved compliance plan the source

would be out of compliance with this section.

The State provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the

acceptability of this method of compliance. The sources must meet the

criteria in section 16.17, which includes recordkeeping sufficient to

determine whether the source is complying, and this would be considered

an acceptable method of complying. New Jersey requires any limits on

potential emissions to be federally enforceable, and contained in a

sources'' operating permit. EPA is proposing approval of this

provision.

In the fourth situation, an alternative VOC control plan must be

approved by NJDEP. It must include a technical analysis of all the

possible control technologies and process alterations. For those

alternatives that are technologically feasible, the plan must evaluate

their economic feasibility. The plan must be supported with adequate

documentation and identify the proposed RACT level. The source must

also have the appropriate permits and certificates and provide for

adequate recordkeeping. The source must be in compliance with these

provisions by May 31, 1995. In this situation, the NJDEP will publish a

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment and shall submit the

alternative VOC control plan to EPA as a proposed State Implementation

Plan revision. EPA is proposing approval of this provision.

Section 16.17(o) identifies the reasons why the State ``may''

revoke an approval of an alterative VOC control plan. One reason would

be an EPA disapproval of the plan after EPA rulemaking action. The

State Implementation Plan approval process is not complete until EPA

grants approval of a revision, therefore, use of the word ``may''

provides notice of future State revocation should EPA disapprove of a

submittal. Given EPA's authority under the Act to require the State to

correct any EPA identified deficiencies and the State's recognition

that State approval does not guarantee a State Implementation Plan

approval, EPA is proposing an approval of this provision.

For sources who want to comply with the alternative VOC control

plan provisions, Section 16.17 provides a procedure and schedule which

must be followed in order to be in compliance with Subchapter 16.

Should a source not comply with this procedure, it would constitute a

violation of Subchapter 16 and would subject the source owner or

operator to State and federal enforcement action and associated civil

and applicable criminal penalties. EPA has determined this is

sufficient to insure that sources comply. EPA is proposing approval of

this provision.

Subsequent to New Jersey's submission of these State Implementation

Plan revisions, national policy discussions ensued regarding the

approvability of state regulations that contain generic provisions (or

in New Jersey's case, alternative VOC control plan provisions), in

establishing RACT requirements for major sources of VOC emissions.

These discussions resulted in additional Agency guidance.

Generic provisions are those portions of a regulation which require

the application of RACT to an emission point, for which the degree of

control is not specified in the rule but rather is to be determined on

a case-by-case basis taking technological and economic factors into

consideration. Under the Act, these individually determined RACT limits

would then need to be submitted by a state as a State Implementation

Plan revision for EPA approval. On November 7, 1996, EPA issued a

policy memorandum providing additional guidance for approving

regulations which contain these ``generic provisions.'' (Sally Shaver

memorandum to EPA Division Directors, ``Approval Options for Generic

RACT Rules Submitted to Meet the non-CTG VOC RACT Requirement and

Certain NOX RACT Requirements'').

EPA policy allows for the full approval of state generic RACT rules

prior to EPA approval of all of the case-by-case major source RACT

determinations, provided an analysis is completed that concludes that

the remaining source RACT determinations involve a de minimis level of

VOC emissions and such pending determinations must be submitted as

State Implementation Plan revisions. Such an approval does not exempt

the remaining sources from RACT; rather it is a de minimis deferral of

the approval of these case-by-case RACT limits.

EPA has evaluated information provided by New Jersey concerning the

possible use by major sources of the generic RACT provisions in order

to meet the RACT requirement. New Jersey has identified five sources

that are using the generic RACT provisions. One has been submitted as a

State Implementation Plan revision and four are currently being

processed by the State and will be submitted as State Implementation

Plan revisions. Based on the emission reductions claimed in New

Jersey's 15 Percent Plan for Subchapter 16, these sources represent

three percent of the VOC emission reductions resulting from sources

coming into compliance with Subchapter 16. EPA has determined that the

remaining emission reductions are de minimis. Therefore, EPA proposes

to find that New Jersey's VOC RACT regulation conforms with EPA's

policy regarding the approval of generic RACT provisions or rules.

As stated above, full approval of Subchapter 16 will not relieve

sources of the obligation to develop, submit and implement RACT level

controls. Nor will it relieve New Jersey of the obligation to ensure

that all sources within the State comply with the VOC RACT requirements

of the Act by adopting and implementing emission limitations. The

proposed approval of Subchapter 16 requires that all major sources of

VOC must comply with RACT and this requirement would be enforceable by

EPA as well as citizens under Section 304 of the Act. If EPA determines

that the regulated sources and the State are not complying with the

requirement to adopt RACT, EPA could issue a State Implementation Plan

call or a finding of non-implementation of the State Implementation

Plan. EPA is proposing approval of these generic RACT provisions.

B. Source Specific Provisions

1. Combustion sources. Subchapter 16 now regulates the following

types of combustion sources: boilers, stationary gas turbines,

stationary internal combustion engines and asphalt plants. These

sources are also regulated under the nitrogen oxides (NOX)

RACT rules under title 7, chapter 27, Subchapter 19, ``Control and

Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen.''

[[Page 17769]]

Emissions of VOCs and NOX from these sources are related. As

NOX emissions decrease, VOC emissions tend to increase. The

new VOC provisions are intended to minimize the VOC emissions while

insuring that NOX emissions are reduced as required by

Subchapter 19.

a. Utility Boilers

Section 7:27-16.8 specifies emission limitations for utility

boilers and requires the owners and operators of these sources to

install a continuous emission monitoring system for carbon monoxide.

The emission limits specified by New Jersey are the lowest that the

boilers can reasonably achieve while still complying with the emission

limits in the NOX RACT rules. In addition, the sources are

required to annually adjust the combustion process to minimize VOC

emissions. The emission limits are enforceable through appropriate

averaging times, test methods, compliance schedules and reporting and

recordkeeping requirements. EPA is proposing approval of this

provision.

b. Non-Utility Boilers

Section 7:27-16.8 also specifies requirements for non-utility

boilers. The control strategy depends on the maximum gross heat input

rate of non-utility boiler. Smaller boilers are required to annually

adjust the combustion process to minimize VOC emissions, while the

larger size boilers must meet emission limits. Also, any non-utility

boiler with a maximum gross heat input rate of at least 250 million BTU

per hour shall install a continuous emissions monitoring system for

carbon monoxide. The emission limits specified by the State are the

lowest level that the boilers can reasonably achieve while still

complying with the emission limits in the NOX RACT rules.

The emission limits are enforceable through appropriate averaging

times, test methods, compliance schedules and reporting and

recordkeeping requirements. EPA is proposing approval of this

provision.

c. Stationary Gas Turbines

Section 7:27-16.9 specifies emission limitations for stationary gas

turbines. The emission limits specified by New Jersey are the lowest

that the turbines can reasonably achieve while still complying with the

emission limits in the NOX RACT rules. In addition, the

sources are required to annually adjust the combustion process to

minimize VOC emissions. The emission limits are enforceable through

appropriate averaging times, test methods, compliance schedules and

reporting and recordkeeping requirements. EPA is proposing to approve

this provision.

d. Stationary Internal Combustion Engines

Section 7:27-16.10 specifies emission limitations for stationary

internal combustion engines. The emission limits specified by New

Jersey are the lowest that the engines can reasonably achieve while

still complying with the emission limits in the NOX RACT

rules. In addition, the sources are required to annually adjust the

combustion process to minimize VOC emissions. The emission limits are

enforceable through appropriate averaging times, test methods,

compliance schedules and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. EPA

is proposing to approve this provision.

e. Asphalt Plants

Section 7:27-16.11 specifies emission limitations for batch mixed

and drum asphalt plants. The emission limits specified by New Jersey

are the lowest that the asphalt plants can reasonably achieve while

still complying with the emission limits in the NOX RACT

rules. In addition, the sources are required to annually adjust the

combustion process to minimize VOC emissions. The emission limits are

enforceable through appropriate averaging times, test methods,

compliance schedules and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. EPA

is proposing approval of this provision.

f. Flares

Section 7:27-16.13 requires that any flare in use after May 31,

1995 at a major VOC facility must have been designed to reduce VOC

emissions by at least 95 percent. The rule prohibits the use of

noncomplying flares after that date. The flare must also be installed

and operated in accordance with the manufacturers' specifications.

Based upon present technology available, flares have been attaining

control efficiency levels at 95 percent and greater. Regulatory

compliance is maintained via inspections, certification, recordkeeping

and recording requirements, and operation and maintenance procedures to

ensure that the control technology is installed and operating

sufficiently. EPA is proposing approval of this provision.

2. VOC Transfer Operations

Section 16.4 specifies emission limitations and operating practices

for operations that involve the transfer of VOCs other than gasoline.

This section applies to receiving vessels or tanks, delivery vessels,

transfer operations and contains requirements similar to those required

in Section 16.3 for gasoline transfer and storage. Receiving vessels

(including storage tanks, delivery vessels, manufacturing process

vessels) of 2,000 gallons or greater are required to have submerged

filling. Storage tanks of 2,000 gallons or greater capacity with

emissions of 1,000 pounds VOC per year must have a vapor control

device. Delivery vessels must be inspected and certified as passing

pressure tests and must be loaded and unloaded within specified

pressure and vacuum standards. Transfer operations with emissions of

2,000 pounds VOC per year are required to have a vapor balance system

or vapor control device that is 90 percent effective.

Section 16.5 specifies emission limitations and operating practices

for marine vessel loading of VOCs and ballasting operations. Emissions

from the transfer of VOCs must be reduced by 95 percent and transfers

must meet leak tightness standards. EPA is proposing approval of this

provision.

3. Surface Coating Operations.

Sections 16.7 has been revised to add three new surface coating

categories: concrete pipe coating, sheet-fed gravure printing and

screen printing operations to the original categories previously

approved by EPA. These new categories are subject to the same general

requirements for recordkeeping, reporting, options for coming into

compliance and testing. Concrete pipe coating operations are subject to

the same emission limitations as metal pipe coating operations. Inks

used in screen printing operations are limited to 3.3 pounds of VOC per

gallon, with the exception that inks used on fabrics are limited to 2.9

pounds of VOC per gallon. There are also two specialty ink limitations:

conductive inks are limited to 8.5 pounds of VOC per gallon and special

purpose screen printing inks which must withstand adverse environmental

conditions are limited to 6.7 pounds of VOC per gallon. As an

alternative to complying with the coating limitations, a source could

choose to comply by using add-on control equipment which captures at

least 70 percent of the VOC emissions and controls 90 percent of these

captured emissions using carbon adsorption equipment or 95 percent if

using a thermal oxidizer.

New Jersey has also revised the control requirements for the other

regulated printing operations which choose to comply by using add-on

controls to reflect advances in equipment capabilities. Sources

installing new thermal oxidizers will

[[Page 17770]]

have to meet the 95 percent destruction requirement. Carbon adsorption

equipment will continue to meet the 90 percent control requirement.

New limitations have been added for fountain solutions used to

dampen printing plates in order to prevent ink transfer to areas which

will not contain a printed image. The VOC content of fountain solutions

is limited to 5 percent if the solution is kept at a temperature of 55

degrees Fahrenheit or less and 3 percent if the solution is at a

temperature greater than 55 degrees Fahrenheit. EPA is proposing

approval of these provisions.

4. Leak Detection and Repair at Chemical Plants.

The leak detection and repair requirements previously contained in

section 16.6 have been moved to a new section 16.18. Section 16.18

specifies the leak detection and repair requirements for various types

of facilities, including those for which a CTG was published. These

were previously approved by EPA. Section 16.18 now requires chemical

plants which are major, that is, which process 550 tons/year of VOC, to

conduct leak detection and repair identified leaking components. These

requirements were based on the previously issued CTGs and leak

detection and repair requirements contained in ``National Emission

Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' EPA is proposing

approval of this provision.

5. Natural Gas Pipelines--Blowdown.

Section 16.21 requires natural gas pipeline owners or operators to

control the emissions of VOC during non-emergency release of natural

gas from the pipeline when performing inspections, maintenance or

repairs. This is referred to as blowdown and covers releases of VOC of

2,000 pounds or greater. Blowdown events which would have an emission

rate above 3.5 pounds of VOC per hour would be regulated by section

16.16 which would require 95 percent control. Since the smaller

blowdown events are infrequent and can occur at pump stations,

compressor stations and at valves along the pipeline (instead of at a

fixed location), it is difficult to require a specific level of control

or operating procedures. Instead these events are required to be

included in ``Control Measure Plans,'' which requires reporting of such

events and the reduction of VOCs through use of control technology or

operating procedures which limit VOC emissions.

Unlike RACT demonstrations required by section 16.17, minor

blowdown sources are not automatically required to submit Control

Measure Plans unless requested to do so. However, annual reporting of

blowdown events is required and New Jersey may require amendments if

the State or EPA identifies deficiencies and denies approval of a

proposed Control Measure Plan.

While EPA does not require RACT for this minor source category, New

Jersey has taken credit for emission reductions resulting from

controlling this source category in its 15 Percent Rate of Progress

Plan. Therefore, EPA recognizes the need for review and revision of

such plans in the event that the Control Measure Plans do not meet the

requirements of section 16.21(f). While the submission of such plans is

not automatic, EPA has determined that because the reductions from such

sources are minimal (potentially no more than one percent of the VOC

reductions resulting from the revisions to Subchapter 16) and because

New Jersey has identified a surplus of reductions which is greater than

the reductions it credits for this source category, EPA proposes

approval of Section 16.21. Regulatory compliance is maintained via

implementation of the Control Measure Plans and annual reports required

by this provision.

C. Other Changes

In addition to expanding Subchapter 16 with the new sections

discussed above, New Jersey has made a number of less extensive changes

to Subchapter 16. Minor changes have been made to the previously

approved sections and some have also been renumbered. The definition of

VOC has been changed to make it consistent with EPA's. New Jersey has

made administrative changes to Subchapter 16 in order to correct errors

it had identified. These were generally of a typographical nature

involving references, punctuation and omissions and did not

substantively change the requirements previously adopted. Along with

the recodification, several sections were also reorganized to improve

their clarity. These are consistent with the original adoptions. The

State also removed interim milestones which have past, while retaining

the final compliance date. EPA is proposing approval of these changes.

D. Related Changes to Other Subchapters

Subchapters 8, 17, 23, 25, and Air Test Method 3. New Jersey also

submitted as part of this State Implementation Plan revision, revisions

to Subchapter 8 ``Permits and Certificates,'' which provides the

mechanism which New Jersey uses for issuing permits and certificates;

Subchapter 17 ``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Toxic

Substances,'' which restricts the emission of toxic substances;

Subchapter 23 ``Prevention of Air Pollution From Architectural Coatings

and Consumer Products'' which limits the amount of VOC in architectural

coatings and paints; Subchapter 25 ``Control and Prohibition of Air

Pollution by Vehicular Fuels'' which regulates gasoline; and Air Test

Method 3--Sampling and Analytical Procedures for the Determination of

Volatile Organic Compounds from Source Operations (Title 7, Chapter

27B, Subchapter 3). The revisions made to these Subchapters primarily

involve changing the definition of VOC to make it consistent with EPA's

and minor administrative changes similar to those described in III.C.

above. EPA is proposing approval of the revisions to Subchapters 8, 23,

25, and Air Test Method 3.

IV. Summary

EPA has evaluated the submitted revisions for consistency with its

provisions, EPA regulations and EPA policy. EPA is proposing approval

of Subchapter 16. EPA is also proposing to approve the revisions of

Subchapters 8, 17, 23, 25, and Air Test Method 3.

Neither the ozone attainment demonstration nor other aspects of the

ozone State Implementation Plan are being revised by this action. EPA,

therefore, is only addressing the adequacy of Subchapter 16 in meeting

section 182(b)(2) with regard to non-CTG major sources and the ability

of this revision to fulfill EPA requirements. EPA is not making a

finding concerning other aspects of its State Implementation Plan at

this time. EPA is only proposing approval of the addition of the new

control requirements.

Nothing in this proposed rule should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any State Implementation Plan. Each request for revision to

the State Implementation Plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal

[[Page 17771]]

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a July

10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted

this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

State Implementation Plan approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.

Therefore, because the federal State Implementation Plan approval does

not impose any new requirements, EPA certifies that it does not have a

significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act, preparation of

a flexibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action. The Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning State Implementation Plans on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not

include a federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of

$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal action approves

pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the State

Implementation Plan revision will be based on whether it meets the

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the Act, as

amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

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

Dated: April 2, 1997.

William J. Muszynski,

Deputy Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97-9382 Filed 4-10-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P