### 'New York StateDepartment ofEnvironmental Conservation Assistant Commissioner Office ofAir Resources, Climate Change & Energy, 14th Floor 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-1010 Phone: (518) 402-8537 • Fax: (518) 402-8541 Joe Martens Commissioner Website: www.dec.ny.gov 

# MAY - 5 2011

Ms. Judith A. 

### Enck Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region 2 290 Broadway, 26th

### Floor New York, NY 10007-1866 

### Clean Data Petition for the 2006 24-hour PM2
.S 

### NAAQS: New York-No New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment Area DearRegional AdministratorEnck: On December 18, 2006,**~he** 

### United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).1 EPA revised the primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standards to a level of35 micrograms per cubic meter (Jl,g!m\ 

### based on a three-year average ofthe 98th 

### percentile of24­ hourPM2.5 concentrations. EPA finalized its air quality designations for this standard on December 14, 2009.2 These designations were based upon monitored air quality data for calendar years 2006 through 2008. EPA found that the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-eTmetropolitan area was in violation ofthe NAAQS. Ten New York counties within this area were therefore designated as nonattainment: Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Orange, Rockland, and Westchester. Based on updated air quality monitoring data from the New York, New Jersey and Connecticutportions ofthe New York-No New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-eT nonattainment area, the 2006 24-hour PM2
.5NAAQS is now being met. Specifically, the 2009 design values (based on data for calendar years 2007 through 2009) demonstrate levels below the 35 Jlg/m3 

### standard in all three states. Additionally, the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (Department) recently obtained data for the 2010 calendar year, which further demonstrate a decreasing PM2.5 trend and continued compliance withthis standard. Table A-I in Attachment A contains complete, quality-assured 2009 24··hour PM2
.5design values that are' certified bythe respective states**a~** 

### complete. Table A-2 contains the 2010 24-hour design values for New York State.

I 71 FR 61144, published October 17, 2006 274 FR 58688, published November 13, 2009

: ! "'i :_'; .";,! t .J'J



# _ ....

......m· ....

2

....

### TheDepartment hereby petitions EPA to make

### a binding determination that the New York State portion ofthe New York-No New Jersey-Long Island" NY-NJ-CTnonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hourPM2 .5standard of35 Jlglm3• 

### Accordingly, the Department understands that a clean data determination from EPA would suspend the requirements for submitting a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision concerning attainment demonstrations, Reasonable Further Progress, and contingency measures. The Departmentacknowledges that the suppression oftherequirement to submit SIP revisions for the aforementioned provisions is in effect only as long as this area continues to monitor attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and that a clean data determination does not suppress the new source review and transportation conformityrequirements. New Yorkwill continue to operate its air quality monitoring network, and ifan area experiences a violation ofthe standard, the areawould be subjectto a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision(s) and would need to address those requirements. The considerable improvements in ambientPM2.5 concentrations are due to a variety of state and federal control programs implemented to reduce emissions ofboth

### PM2.S 

### and its precursorpollutants. Compliance with the NAAQS is expected to continue as a result of additionallEeasures that are being implemented atthe state and federal levels. These control measures are listed in Attachment B to this letter. Certain data completeness issues arose when calculating the design values for this clean datapetition. The Department feels that these issues do not affect the finding that the New York metropolitan areahas reached attainment for this standard. 

### An explanation ofthe datahandling procedures isprovided in Attachment C. The Department looks forward to working with you and your staffin an effort to gain timely approval ofthis clean data petition. Ifyou or your staffhave any questions, or if additional information is required to process this request, please contactMr. Scott Griffin at (518) 402-8396. Sincerely,

# L~~ Assistant Commissioner Office ofAirResources, Climate Change and Energy Enclosures

cc: 

### R. Ruvo, EPA Region 2./ D. Shaw

2

### AttachmentA: Design Values for the New.York-N. New Jersey..,.Long Island, NY-NJ-CT NonattainmentArea Table**A~l.** 

### 2009 Desi2ll Values for the 2006**24~bour** PM:Lli 

### NAAOS I State Monitoring Site AQSID 200798th Percentile

(I-lIIm3) 200898th Percentile

hlg/m3) 2oo998th· Percentile

(J.I&Im3) 2009 Design I Value (J,lg/m3) II Hempstead 36-059-0008 28.5 29.2 25.8 28 Babylon 36-103-0002 28.8 26.8 21.6 26 JHS45 36-061-0079 34.3 32.3 28.8 32 Division Street 36-061-0134 37.1 31.8 29.0 33 Morrisania 36-005-0080 36.2 31.3 30.0 33 Botanical Garden 36-005-0083/0133 32.5 29.8 27.4 30 NY IS 52 36-005-0110 33.9 29.9 30.6 31 JHS 126 36-047-0122 33.6 29.4 26.9 30 Queens College/PS 219 36-081-0124 31.8 30.3 26.7 30 Susan Wagner 36-085-0067 28.8 27.7 23.0 27 Port Richmond**36-0~S-005S** 32.8 28.7 24.6 29 Newburgh 36-071-0002 30.4 26.0 20.6 26

. Mamaroneck 36-119-1002 30.6 30.4 27.0 29 Fort Lee 34-003-0003 34.5 32.2 27.1 31 Jersey City 34-017-1002 34.9 32.0 29.2 32 + Newark 34-013-0015 34.9 28.7 

### - N/A Union City 34-017-2002 39.1 33.4 26.6 33 Trenton 34-021-0008 32.5 31.0 23.0 29 Washington Crossing 34-021-8001 27.2 28.0 22.2 26 NJ New Brunswick 34-023-0006 30.4 28;9 20.7 27 Morristown 34-027-0004 32.4 23.8 21.9 26 Chester 34-027-3001 31.4 24.3 20.9 26 Paterson 34-031-0005 36.6 28.6 26.1 30 Elizabeth Turnpike 34-039-0004 35.0 33.8 27.7 32 Elizabeth Downtown .34-039-0006 35.9 31.1 25.6 31 Rahway 34-039-2003 34.4 29.9 25.2 30 Bridgeport 09-001-0010 30.2 32.3 29.3 31 Danbury 09-001-1123 30.4 27.5 27.6 29 Norwalk 09-001-3005 31.9 26.3 29.3 29 Westport 09-001-9003 29.0 30.7 26.4 29 CT New Haven Firehouse 09-009-0026 29.8 30.9 28.5 30 New Haven Criscuolo 09-009":0027 30.5 31.5 32.3 31 New Haven State Street 09-009-1123 30.6 32.1 30.8 31 New Haven Ag. Station 09-009-2008 28.5 25.4 27.3 27 Waterbury 09-009-2123 32.7 28.4 28.1 30 jite shut down in 2009; new Newark site opened on 6/30/09


### A-I 

# .-....-­

### TableA-2. 2010 Desi2D Values for the 2006 24-hour PM2• S 

### NAAQS (New York StatePortiOD) Monitoring Site AQSID 200898th Percentile**(~m3)** 2oo998th Percentile**(~m3)** 2010 98th Percentile**(~m3)** 2010 Design Value**(~m3)**

25 25 29 29 29 27 27 28 24 26

, 24 28 Hempstead 36-059-0008 29.2 25.8 20.2 Babylon 36-103-0002 26.8 21.6 26.1 JHS45 36-061-0079 32.3 28.8 25.2 Division Street 36-061-0134 31.8 29.0 27.0 Morrisania 36-005-0080 31.3 30.0 27.0 Botanical Garden**36-o05-0083/013~** 29.8 27.4 24.8 JHS 126 36-047-0122 29.4 26.9 24.8 Queens College 36-081-0124 30.3 26.7 26.3 Susan Wagner 36-085-0067 27.7 23.0 21.5 Port Richmond 36-085-0055 28.7 24.6 25.5 Newburgh 36-071-0002 26.0 20.6 26.5 Mamaroneck 36-119-1002 30.4 27.0 26.7

A-2AttachmentB: Control Measures for PM2.5 In recent years, many control programs have been adopted orrevised bythe Department and EPA with the result ofreducing ambient levels ofPM2 .5by controlling both direct emissions of particulates, and emissions ofprecursors (i.e., oxides ofnitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds). Major multi-state programs such as the Acid Deposition Reduction Program, the NOx SIP Call, and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (which currentlyremains effective, despite having been remanded to EPA) have helped in making significant reductions in ambient concentrations ofPM2 .5, a trend which can be seen in the tables in Attachment A. The following list ofcontrol programs includes more recent measures that were adopted orrevised as a result ofplanning for the 1997 annual PM2 .5NAAQS, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the Regional Haze SIP, or from additional state and federal mandates. These measures have generally been adopted by the Department since 2009. Some have already achieved reductions in emissions of PM2 .5and precursors, while others have been promulgated and will soon realize emissions reductions. Collectively, these measures will ensure continued compliance with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Additional future measures, such as the federal Transport Rule and more stringent motorvehicle emissions limits, will further guarantee ongoing compliance:

o State Measures: 

### o Part 212.12

- Hot Mix Asphalt Production Plants 

### o Part 215

- Open Fires 

### o Part 220

- Portland Cement Plants and Glass Plants

. , 

### o Part 227-2

- Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Major Sources ofOxides ofNitrogen (NOx)

. o Part 228

- Surface Coating Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers 

### o Part 231

- New Source Review for New and Modified Facilities 

### o Part 234

- Graphic Arts 

### o Part 235

- Consumer Products 

### o Part 239

- Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control 

### o Part 241

- Asphalt Pavement and Asphalt Based Surface Coating 

### o Part 243

- CAIRNOll Ozone Season Trading Program 

### o Part 244

- CAIRNOll Annual Trading Program 

### o Part 245

- CAIR S02 Trading Program 

### o Part 249

- Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)



### o Federal Measures (since 2(02): 

### o 2007 Highway Rule o Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Controls an<i Fuels 

### o Highway Motorcycle Exhaust Emission Standards 

### o Non-Road Control Programs 

### o On-Board Refueling Vapor Recovery 

### o Tier2 Motor Vehicle ControlslLow Sulfur Gas

B-1


# -'. 

### THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANKAttachment C: Data Completeness Issues Appendix N of40 CFRPart 50 contains the data handling conventions for the 2006 24-hour

### PM2.s standard. It states that "[a] yearmeets data completeness requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarterhave valid data." Appendix N also states that "[t]he use ofless than complete data is subject to the approval ofEPA which mayconsiderfactors such as monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence, and nearby concentrations in determining whetherto use such data for comparisons to the NAAQS." MonitorMissed an Individual Quarter Over the course ofmonitoring for the PM2.s standard, individual sites may occasionally fall short of the 75 percent completionrequirement for a quarterfor various reasons. Between 2007 and 2010, four individual quarters were missed by monitors in the New York Stateportion ofthe nonattainment area.

• Hempstead: 3rd Quarter 2007::::: 74 percent (relevant only for 2009 design value) • Division St: 1st Quarter2008::::: 61 percent • Port Richmond: 2nd Quarter 2008 ::::: 70 percent • JHS 126: 3rd Quarter 2009::::: 74 percent The Department believes these values are still adequate for the computation ofthe 2009 and 2010 design values, and have thus been included in Tables A-I and A-2. The Department's general arguments are as follows: 1. The high number ofmonitors in the New York metropolitan area (NYMA) makes it difficult to ensure that the proper completeness rate is achieved for every quarter across the entire area's network. Calculation ofthe 2009 design values relied on 156 quarters, while calculation ofthe 2010 design values relied on 144 quarters (see below concerning the IS 52 monitor); 2. Concentrations at nearby monitors exhibit no major spikes in 

### PM2.s concentrations during these incomplete quarters; 3. None ofthesemonitors registered more than one incomplete quarter over the 2006 to 2010 timeframe; and, 4. Two ofthese collection rates are as high as 74 percent. Monitor Missed Multiple Quarters Two monitors were subject to more extensive periods ofincomplete data collection. In both cases the suspended downtime was du'e to nearbybuilding construction.

• PS 19 (AQS iD 36-061-0128): Sampling suspended 5/27/2008, resumed 3/2/2009 o Additionally, less than 75 percent <>Jmpletion rate for 4th Quarter 2007 • IS 52 (AQS ID 36-005-0110): Sampling suspended 6/16/2010 through the end of2010 o Suspension ofsampling also affected collocated monitor Because ofthe extended periods in which these monitors failed to record PM2,s concentrations, PS 19 values were not reported in Tables A-lorA-2, and IS 52 values were not reported in Table A-2. The



### C-lDepartment does not believe these suspended sampling periods affect the finding that the NYMA has reached attainment ofthe 24-hour standard. Reviewing annual 98th percentile values from PS 19 in previous years demonstrates that values were in line with othermonitors in the 

### NYMA at the time. The last three complete, consecutive years recorded byPS 19 were 2004 through 2006, with values of37.0, 37.7, and 38.2 llg/m3 respectively. While this produces a 2006 design value of38 llg/m3, exceeding the standard, it is reasonable to conclude that PS 19 would follow the generally declining trend that 

### NYMA monitors have followed. Thebest analogue would likely be the values recorded at the Division Streetmonitor, which is located approximately 1.25 miles away. As seen in Enclosure A, the Division Streetmonitor is in compliance ofthe NAAQS with 2009 and 2010 design values of33 llg/m3 and 29 llg/m3, respectively. Figure C-1 below demonstrates this declining trend in 

### PM2.Sconcentrations over the last decade in the NYMA. This trend was calculated using average concentrations for each year, based on the 98th percentile values at the NYMA 

### PM2.S monitors. The Department interprets this decline as being permanent and enforceable, attributable to the many state and federal control programs targeting 

### PM2.S and its precursors. 

### Fi ure C-l. Average 98th 

### Percentile

### Co~centration Trend 40.0



# - 35.0 

### .., E 

# }
c 0 30.0 f! 

# .. c CII u C 0 u 25.0**~o.o**



### -------------_._-­ Monitored values for IS 52 are included in Table A-I, since complete data were recorded for years 2007 through 2009. The monitor's suspension affects only 2010 data, and therefore the 2010 design value is not included in Table A-2. The 2009 design value for IS 52 is well within compliance ofthe NAAQS and representative ofotherNYMA monitors, at 31 Jlg/m3

. .

C-2IS 52 is one ofthe NYMA monitors (along with Queens College) that monitors daily. In its absence, the Morrisania monitor was converted from l-in-3 to daily sampling in orderto minimize the loss of data collection. Note that Morrisania's 2010 design value is 29 Jlg/m3• (Sampling at Morrisania returned to l-in-3 as of 1/1/2011.) , The IS 52 monitor captured 156 samples before being shut down in June, 2010. From this number of samples, the 98th percentile value for calculation ofthe design value wouldtypicallybe represented bythe 4th highest sample. The 4th highest ofthe 156 samples was 25.4 Jlg/m3; even the 2nd highest value was only 26.6 Jlg/m3• Monitor Closed Two New York Countymonitors were unavoidably closed during the 2007 to 2009 time period.

• Canal Street (AQS ID 36-061-0062):

.Sampling ended 3/31/2007 • PS 59 (AQS ID 36-061-0056): Sampling ended 6/29/2008 Because the shutdown ofthe Canal Street monitortook place so early in 2007, only a single complete quarter (27 samples) was recorded, with a maximum value of34.7 Jlg/m3• The last complete threeyearperiod recorded by Canal Street was 2004 through 2006with 98th percentile values of38.0, 39.0, and 35.9 Jlg/m3
, respectively, for a 2006 design value of38 Jlg/m

. As argued above for the PS 19 monitor, these values are in line with the otherNYMA monitors atthe time, including those in New York County. This monitorhad been located at the post office at 350 Canal Street. Due to this site's emergency shutdown, additional samplers were added to the Division Street site, including the FRM 

### PM2.S sampler. Less than one mile separates these two locations. The Division Street monitoris therefore representative ofthe ambient concentrations that would have been recorded at the Canal Street site, had the monitor continued to operate
.. Further analysis demonstrates thatthe Canal Street monitor would be demonstrating attainment, assuming it followed the generally declining 

### PM2.S concentration trend inthe NYMA. The average decline of98th percentile values between 2004 and 2010 at NYMAmonitors was 22.8 percent; likewise, values between 2005 and 2010 declined 27.0 percent, and values between 2006 and 2010 declined 27.5 percent on average. Applying these trends to the 98th percentile values ofCanal Street, a 2010' value ranging from 26.0 to 29.3 Jlg/m3 is found. Note that the 2010 98th percentile value at Division Street was 27.0 Jlg/m3

. PS 59is located on East 57th Street in Manhattan, about halfwaybetween the JHS 45 and Division Street monitors (approximately 3.25 to 3.5 miles from each). The last complete three-year design value for the PS 59 monitor was for years 2005 through 2007, with a design value of39 Jlg/m3

. The Division Streetmonitor did not begin 

### PM2.s sampling until2007; in their one year ofconcuITent sampling, Division Street had a slightly higher 98th percentile value, 37.1 Jlg/m3 compared to 36.8 Jlg/m3 atPS 59. The Division Street monitoris now in compliance ofthe NAAQS with 2009 and 2010 design values of33 Jlg/m3 and 29 Jlg/m3
, respectively.

.

C-3From 2000 to 2007, 98th percentile values at the PS 59 monitor were slightly higher than those of JHS 45. The difference ranged from 3.36 percentto 12.56 percent; on average, values at PS 59 were 7.42 percent higher than those atJHS 45 over seven years ofconcurrent sampling (values in 2003 are being neglected becaust( ofdata com.pleteness issues with the PS 59 monitor that year). This average difference can be used to extrapolate additional values for the PS 59 monitor that exhibit compliance with the standard. Even using the maximum difference (Le., 12.56 percent), the extrapolated 2010 design value displays compliance with the NAAQS. See Tables C-l and C-2 below for these calculations.

Table C-l. Comparison ofPS 59 and JHS45 98th Percentile Values (J1g/m3) 2000 2001 2002 ·2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Average PS59 41.7 39.8 37.3 34.5 39.5 40.0 40.7 36.8 JHS45 40.3 34.8
. 36.0 43.7 36.1 36.2· 37.6 34.3 % Difference 3.36% .12.56% 3.49% N/A 8.61% 9.50%, 7.62% 6.79% 7.42%
Table ·C-2. ExtrapolatedPS 59 Design Values (J1gim3) 2007 98th % 2008 98th % 2009 98th % 2010 98th % 2009 DV 2010DV JHS45 34.3 32.3 28.8 25.2 32 29 PS 59 (Avg.7.42%) 36.8 34.9 31.1 27.2 34 31 PS 59 (Max. 12.56%) 36.8 36.9 32.9 28.8 36 33

C-4

### PUBLIC NOTICE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION "CLEAN DATA PETITION FORTHE 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS: NEW YORK-N. NEW JERSEY· LONG ISLAND, NY-NJ-CT NONATIAINMENT AREA" Notice is hereby given that theNEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (Department) submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a clean data petition for the New York Stateportion ofthe New York-No New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT metropolitan statistical area that was designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). On December 14, 2009, EPA promulgated designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. These designations werebased upon monitored air quality data for calendar years 2006 through 2008. EPA found that. the New York-No New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-eTmetropolitan area was inviolation ofthe NAAQS. Ten New York counties within this area were therefore designated as nonattainment: Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Orange, Rockland, and**Westche~ter.** 

### . Based on updated air qualitymonitoring data from the New York, New Jersey and Connecticutportions ofthe New York-No New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-eT nonattainment area, the 2006 24-hourPM2.5 NAAQS is nowbeing met. Specifically, the 2009 design values demonstrate levels below the 35**~g1m3** 

### standard in all three states. The Departmentrecently obtained 98th 

### percentile data for New York State for the 2010 calendar year, which further demonstrate a decreasing PM2.5 trend and continued compliance with the standard. The following table displays the 2009 and 2010 design values (based on 98th

.

### percentile concentration data for calendar years 2007 through 2009, and 2008 through 2010,respectively) for the New York State portion ofthis nonattainment area (all values**are·in.~g1m3).** MonitoringSite AQSID 2007 98th % 2008 98th % 2009

. 98th% 2010 98th % 2009 Design Value 2010 Design Value Hempstead 36-059-0008 28.5 29.2 25.8 20.2 28 25 Babylon 36-103-0002 28.8

. 26.8 21.6 26.1 26 25 JHS45 36-061-0079 34.3 32.3 28.8 25.2 32 29 Division Street 36-061-0134 37.1 31.8 29.0 27.0 33 29 Morrisania 36-005-0080 36.2 31.3 30.0 27.0 33 29 Botanical Garden 36-005-0083/0133 32.5 29.8 27.4 24.8 30 27 IS 52 36-005-0110 33.9 29.9 30.6 N/A 31 N/A* JHS 126 36-047-0122 33.6 29.4 26.9 24.8 30 27 Queens College 36·081·0124 31.8 30.3 26.7 26.3 30 28 Susan Wagner 36·085·0067 28.8 27.7 23.0 21.5 27 24 Port Richmond 36-085-0055 32.8 28.7

. 24.6 25.5 29 26 Newburgh 36-071-0002· 30.4 26.0 20.6 26.5 26 24 Mamaroneck 36-119-1002 30.6 30.4 27.0 26.7 29 . 28 * Due to data completeness issues in 2010, the IS 52 Design Value is not included here.

The Department does not expect this to affect its Clean Data Petition.

### EPA's granting ofthis petition would relieve the Department ofthe requirement to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to demonstrate how the 24-hour PM2
.5NAAQS would be met. The suppression of this requirement is in effect only as long as the area continues to monitor attainment ofthe standard. The Department will continue to operate its air quality monitoring network, arid ifany monitor experiences a violation ofthe NAAQS, the area would again be subjectto a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision(s) and would need to address those requirements. There are numerous federal and state control measures which have contributed to decreased emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors. These emissionsreductions have resulted in the decreasing ambient concentrations displayed above, and have allowed the 24-hour

### PM 2.S 

### NAAQS to be achieved within the required time period. A 30-daypublic comment period is being pr()vided for this submission. Written comments should be submitted by [DATE] to 

### Mr. Scott Griffin, New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, 625 Broadway - 2nd 

### Floor, Albany, New York, 12233-3251, or byemail toairsips@gw.dec.state.ny.us.