'New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Assistant Commissioner 

Office of Air Resources, Climate Change & Energy, 14th Floor 

625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-1010 

Phone: (518) 402-8537 • Fax: (518) 402-8541 Joe Martens 

Website: www.dec.ny.gov Commissioner

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
 

Dear Regional Administrator Enck: 

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 of the 98th percentile of24­

hour PM2.5 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-eT metropolitan area was 

in violation of the 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 

Connecticut portions 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 of Environmental 

Conservation (Department) recently obtained data for the 2010 calendar year, which further 

demonstrate a decreasing PM2.5 trend and continued compliance with this standard. Table A-I in 

Attachment A contains complete, quality-assured 2009 24··hour PM2.5 design values that are' 

certified by the respective states a~ complete. Table A-2 contains the 201 0 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.... 
The Department hereby petitions EPA to make a binding determination that the New 

York State portion of the New York-No New Jersey-Long Island" NY-NJ-CT nonattainment 

area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5standard of 35 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 ofthe requirement 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 conformity requirements. New York will continue to operate its air quality 

monitoring network, and if an area experiences a violation of the standard, the area would be 

subject to a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision(s) and would need to address those 

requirements. 

The considerable improvements in ambient PM2.5 concentrations are due to a variety of 

state and federal control programs implemented to reduce emissions ofboth PM2.

S and its 

precursor pollutants. Compliance with the NAAQS is expected to continue as a result of 

additionallEeasures that are being implemented at the 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 

data petition. The Department feels that these issues do not affect the finding that the New York 

metropolitan area has reached attainment for this standard. An explanation of the data handling 

procedures is provided in Attachment C. 

The Department looks forward to working with you and your staff in an effort to gain 

timely approval ofthis clean data petition. If you or your staffhave any questions, or if 

additional information is required to process this request, please contact Mr. Scott Griffin at 

(518) 402-8396. 

Sincerely, 

L~~ Assistant Commissioner 

Office of Air Resources, Climate Change 

and Energy 

Enclosures 

cc: R. Ruvo, EPA Region 2./ 

D. Shaw 

2 
State Monitoring Site AQSID 

200798th 

Percentile 

(I-lIIm3

) 

200898th 

Percentile 

hlg/m3 

) 

2oo998t

Percentil

(J.I&Im3 

) 

Hempstead 36-059-0008 28.5 29.2 25.8 

Babylon 36-103-0002 28.8 26.8 21.6 

JHS45 36-061-0079 34.3 32.3 28.8 

Division Street 36-061-0134 37.1 31.8 29.0 

Morrisania 36-005-0080 36.2 31.3 30.0 

Botanical Garden 36-005-0083/0133 32.5 29.8 27.4 

NY IS 52 36-005-0110 33.9 29.9 30.6 

JHS 126 36-047-0122 33.6 29.4 26.9 

Queens College/PS 219 36-081-0124 31.8 30.3 26.7 

Susan Wagner 36-085-0067 28.8 27.7 23.0 

Port Richmond 36-0~S-005S 32.8 28.7 24.6 

Newburgh 36-071-0002 30.4 26.0 20.6 

Mamaroneck 36-119-1002 30.6 30.4 27.0 

Fort Lee 34-003-0003 34.5 32.2 27.1 

Jersey City 34-017-1002 34.9 32.0 29.2 

+ Newark 34-013-0015 34.9 28.7 - 

Union City 34-017-2002 39.1 33.4 26.6 

Trenton 34-021-0008 32.5 31.0 23.0 

Washington Crossing 34-021-8001 27.2 28.0 22.2 

NJ New Brunswick 34-023-0006 30.4 28;9 20.7 

Morristown 34-027-0004 32.4 23.8 21.9 

Chester 34-027-3001 31.4 24.3 20.9 

Paterson 34-031-0005 36.6 28.6 26.1 

Elizabeth Turnpike 34-039-0004 35.0 33.8 27.7 

Elizabeth Downtown .34-039-0006 35.9 31.1 25.6 

Rahway 34-039-2003 34.4 29.9 25.2 

Bridgeport 09-001-0010 30.2 32.3 29.3 

Danbury 09-001-1123 30.4 27.5 27.6 

Norwalk 09-001-3005 31.9 26.3 29.3 

Westport 09-001-9003 29.0 30.7 26.4 

CT New Haven Firehouse 09-009-0026 29.8 30.9 28.5 

New Haven Criscuolo 09-009":0027 30.5 31.5 32.3 

New Haven State Street 09-009-1123 30.6 32.1 30.8 

New Haven Ag. Station 09-009-2008 28.5 25.4 27.3 

Waterbury 09-009-2123 32.7 28.4 28.1 

jite shut down in 2009; new Newark site opened on 6/30/09 

A-I 

.-....-­
Table A-2. 2010 Desi2D Values for the 2006 24-hour PM2•

S NAAQS (New York State PortiOD) 

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-2
 
Attachment B: Control Measures for PM2.5 

In recent years, many control programs have been adopted or revised by the Department and EPA 

with the result ofreducing ambient levels of PM2.5by 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 currently remains 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 of control programs includes more recent measures that were adopted or revised as 

a result of planning 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 

motor vehicle 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 - CAIR NOll Ozone Season Trading Program 

o	 Part 244 - CAIR NOll 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	 Tier 2 Motor Vehicle ControlslLow Sulfur Gas 

B-1
 

-
'. 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 
Attachment C: Data Completeness Issues 

Appendix N of40 CFR Part 50 contains the data handling conventions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.s 

standard. It states that "[a] year meets data completeness requirements when at least 75 percent of 

the scheduled sampling days for each quarter have valid data." Appendix N also states that "[t]he 

use ofless than complete data is subject to the approval of EPA which may consider factors such as 

monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence, and nearby concentrations in determining 

whether to use such data for comparisons to the NAAQS." 

Monitor Missed an Individual Quarter 

Over the course ofmonitoring for the PM2.s standard, individual sites may occasionally fall short of 

the 75 percent completion requirement for a quarter for various reasons. Between 2007 and 2010, 

four individual quarters were missed by monitors in the New York State portion of the nonattainment 

area. 

•	 Hempstead: 3rd Quarter 2007::::: 74 percent (relevant only for 2009 design value) 

•	 Division St: 1st Quarter 2008::::: 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 of the 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 of monitors 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 of the 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 ofthese monitors registered more than one incomplete quarter over the 2006 to 2010 

timeframe; and, 

4.	 Two of these collection rates are as high as 74 percent. 

Monitor Missed Multiple Quarters 

Two monitors were subject to more extensive periods of incomplete data collection. In both cases 

the suspended downtime was du'e to nearby building 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-lor A-2, and IS 52 values were not reported in Table A-2. The 

C-l 
Department does not believe these suspended sampling periods affect the finding that the NYMA has 

reached attainment of the 24-hour standard. 

Reviewing annual 98th percentile values from PS 19 in previous years demonstrates that values were 

in line with other monitors in the NYMA at the time. The last three complete, consecutive years 

recorded by PS 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. 

The best analogue would likely be the values recorded at the Division Street monitor, which is 

located approximately 1.25 miles away. As seen in Enclosure A, the Division Street monitor is in 

compliance of the 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.S concentrations 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-2
 
IS 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 order to 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 would typically be represented 

by the 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 County monitors 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 of the Canal Street monitor took 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 threeyear period recorded by Canal Street was 2004 through 2006 with 98th percentile values of 38.0, 

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 other NYMA monitors at the time, including those in 

New York County. 

This monitor had 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 monitor is therefore 

representative ofthe ambient concentrations that would have been recorded at the Canal Street site, 

had the monitor continued to operate.. 

Further analysis demonstrates that the Canal Street monitor would be demonstrating attainment, 

assuming it followed the generally declining PM2.S concentration trend in the NYMA. The average 

decline of98th percentile values between 2004 and 2010 at NYMA monitors 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 59 is located on East 57th Street in Manhattan, about halfway between 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 Street monitor did not begin PM2.s sampling until 2007; 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 at PS 59. The Division Street monitor is now in compliance of the NAAQS with 2009 and 

2010 design values of33 Jlg/m3 and 29 Jlg/m3

, respectively. . 

C-3
 
From 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 percent to 12.56 percent; on average, values at PS 59 were 

7.42 percent higher than those at JHS 45 over seven years of concurrent 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 of PS 59 and JHS 45 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 FOR THE 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS: NEW YORK-N. NEW JERSEY· 

LONG ISLAND, NY-NJ-CT NONATIAINMENT AREA" 

Notice is hereby given that the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSERVATION (Department) submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a 

clean data petition for the New York State portion 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 were based upon monitored air quality data for calendar years 2006 through 2008. EPA found that. 

the New York-No New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-eT metropolitan 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 Westche~ter. . 

Based on updated air quality monitoring data from the New York, New Jersey and Connecticut portions 

ofthe New York-No New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-eT nonattainment area, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 

NAAQS is now being met. Specifically, the 2009 design values demonstrate levels below the 35 ~g1m3

standard in all three states. The Department recently 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 of this nonattainment area (all values are·in.~g1m3).

Monitoring Site 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 of the standard. The 

Department will continue to operate its air quality monitoring network, arid if any monitor experiences a 

violation of the NAAQS, the area would again be subject to 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 emissions reductions have resulted in the decreasing ambient concentrations 

displayed above, and have allowed the 24-hour PM2.

S NAAQS to be achieved within the required time period. 

A 30-day public comment period is being pr()vided for this submission. Written comments should be 

submitted by [DATE] to Mr. Scott Griffin, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 625 

Broadway - 2nd Floor, Albany, New York, 12233-3251, or by email toairsips@gw.dec.state.ny.us.