UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION II AIR PROGRAMS BRANCH 

Technical Support Document 

EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

For 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans; Determination of Attainment of the 

2006 24-hour Fine Particle Standard 

June 2012 

 
Technical Support Document 

I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................2 

II. CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR FINE PARTICLE (PM 2.5) ATTAINMENT...3 

A. PM 2.5 Attainment Requirements .................................................................3 

B. Determining Attainment and EPA’s Clean Data Policy..........................................4 

III. MONITORING NETWORK .........................................................................5 

IV. MONITORING SITES WITH INCOMPLETE DATA ...........................................9 

A. Newark-Willis Center: AQS ID 340130015.....................................................9 

B. Elizabeth Lab: AQS ID 240390004...............................................................9 

C. PS 59: AQS ID 360610056.........................................................................9 

D. Canal Street: AQS ID 360610062...............................................................10 

E. PS 19: AQS ID 360610128.......................................................................10 

V. EPA’S ANALYSIS OF MONITORING SITES WITH INCOMPLETE DATA.............10 

 A. Analysis of Air Quality Data.....................................................................10 

B. Addressing Missing Data..........................................................................11 

C. Results of Regression Analysis....................................................................14 

VI. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUMBITTED BY THE STATES...........................29 

VII. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................29 

APPENDIX A 24-Hour Means for NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 FRM monitors ...................................30 

APPENDIX B Design Value Trends..........................................................................34 

APPENDIX C Network Review Letters......................................................................38 

I. INTRODUCTION

 In this technical support document, EPA provides information supporting our proposed 

determination that the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT fine particle (PM2.5) 

nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). 

 In this technical support document, EPA: 

2
 

3

 

- summarizes the statutory and policy requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment area SIPs and 

EPA’s policy concerning clean data; 

- provides a description of the air quality monitoring network for the NY-NJ-CT fine particle 

nonattainment area 

- describes the Newark-Willis Center monitoring site, and provides an explanation for 

incomplete data; 

- describes the Elizabeth Lab monitoring site, and provides an explanation for incomplete data; 

- describes the PS 59 monitoring site, and provides an explanation for incomplete data; 

- describes the Canal Street monitoring site, and provides an explanation for incomplete data; 

- describes the PS 19 monitoring site, and provides an explanation for incomplete data; 

- describes our detailed analysis of our proposed clean data determination, including our 

analysis of the air quality data, and the methodology used for substituting for missing data; 

- describes air quality trends in the NY-NJ-CT fine particle nonattainment area 

- summary of our conclusions on the clean data determination with respect to EPA 

requirements. 

II. CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR FINE PARTICLE (PM 2.5) ATTAINMENT 

A. PM 2.5 Attainment Requirements 

On October 17, 2006, (71 FR 61144), EPA established a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at 35.0 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

) and retained the annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 μg/m3. EPA 

established these standards based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating 

that serious health effects are associated with exposures to particulate matter. 

 On November 13, 2009, (74 FR 58688), EPA published its air quality designations for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2006-2008. These 

designations became effective on December 14, 2009. The NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 area was designated as 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

These designations triggered the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) requirements under section 172(c), which 

requires the submission of an attainment plan for each designated nonattainment area. The CAA 

specifies that for nonattainment areas states must submit attainment plans that demonstrate that the area 

will attain the NAAQS “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than five years from effective date 

of the designation, by no later than three years from the effective date of designation, that is, by 

December 14, 2012. EPA’s Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS1

, which 

follows the framework established by the PM2.5 implementation rule published on April 25, 2007 (72 

Fed. Reg. 20586), outlines the SIP requirements for the attainment plan, which includes among other 

things, the submission of an attainment demonstration showing the air quality improvements expected to 

result from national and local control measures, an analysis of reasonably available control measures 

1

 Memorandum of March 2, 2012, from Steve Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to EPA Air 

Division Directors, with the subject line of: “Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” This document is available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_guide.html 
4

 

(RACM), including all reasonably available control technology (RACT), reasonable further progress 

plan, and contingency measures. 

The States of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, are subject to these requirements since 

several counties in each State are located in a PM2.5 nonattainment area. The NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area is comprised of the following portions of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut: 

the New York portion (40 CFR 81.333) contains the counties of the Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, 

Orange, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester. The New Jersey portion (40 CFR 

81.331) of the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area contains the counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, 

Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union. The Connecticut portion (40 

CFR 81.307) of the nonattainment area includes the counties of Fairfield and New Haven. 

B. Determining Attainment and EPA’s Clean Data Policy 

Compliance with the 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards is determined for a 

monitoring site by rank-ordering all the 24-hour monitor samples taken over the course of a year and 

selecting the 98th percentile value. This would be the 3rd highest value if there are up to 120 samples 

recorded during the year. The design value for a monitoring site is then calculated by averaging the 98th

percentile value for each of three consecutive years. The standard is met when the design value 

calculated in this manner is less than or equal to 35 μg/m3. 

 Data handling conventions and computations necessary for determining whether areas have met 

the PM2.5 NAAQS, including requirements for data completeness, are listed in Appendix N of 40 CFR 

Part 50. A year meets data completeness requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled 

sampling days for each quarter have valid data. The use of less than complete data is subject to the 

approval of EPA, which may consider factors such as monitoring site closures/relocation, monitoring 

diligence, and nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such data. 

 EPA issued a “Clean Data” policy in December 2004 describing possible reduced regulatory 

requirements for areas that attain the standards, but have not yet been designated as attainment.2 In 

EPA’s PM2.5 implementation rule, published on April 25, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 20586), EPA finalized in 

section 51.1004(c) of the text the statutory interpretation that was embodied in the policy. The 2006 24-

hour PM2.5 NAAQS implementation guidance reaffirms and continues the use of this policy. 

 As described in EPA’s clean data policy, upon a determination by EPA that an area designated 

nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS has attained the standard, the requirements for such area to submit 

attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, 

contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS shall be 

suspended until such time as: the area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the requirements no 

longer apply; or EPA determines that the area has violated the PM2.5 NAAQS, at which time the area is 

again required to submit such plans. 

 Attainment determinations under EPA’s clean data policy do not shield an area from other 

required actions such as New Source Review (NSR), conformity and emission inventory requirements, 

2

 Memorandum of December 14, 2004, from Steve Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to EPA 

Air Division Directors, “Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” This document is 

available at: http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/1997standards/guidance.htm 
 

5

 

and provisions to address pollution transport, which would require emission reductions at sources or 

other types of emission activities contributing significantly to nonattainment in other areas or states, or 

interfering with maintenance in those areas. 

Determinations as to whether individual areas have attained the PM2.5 standard and thus qualify 

for application of the clean data policy are being made in the context of rulemakings for individual 

areas. This Technical Support Document (TSD) provides EPA’s analysis used in determining whether 

the NY-NJ-CT 24-Hour PM2.5 nonattainment area has achieved clean data. 

 

III. MONITORING NETWORK 

With the promulgation of the annual and daily PM2.5 NAAQS in 1997, and the establishment of 

the Federal Reference Method (FRM) for monitoring PM2.5, air monitoring for this pollutant was 

initiated in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area beginning in 1998/1999. 

Only FRM data is used for determining compliance with the health based standards. The states 

also complement their FRM network with real-time direct reading hourly PM2.5 measurements. Realtime monitors are used primarily in support of the Air Quality Index (AQI), which provides immediate 

information to the public about air quality and its relationship to public health3. 

The PM2.5 FRM is a filter based method whereby a sample is collected for a specified period of 

time (e.g., 24 hours) on filters that are weighed before and after collection to determine mass by 

difference. The mass value is divided by the total volume of air drawn through the filter, yielding the 

average mass concentration for the specified time period. Most of the FRM samplers in the NY-NJ-CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area operate on a 1-in-3-day schedule, although a few monitors operate on a daily 

basis. Also, as per network design requirements, several FRM sites have collocated duplicate samplers. 

The NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area had 42 air quality monitors in 2009. This far exceeds 

the minimum regulatory requirements: 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D requires three monitoring locations 

for the NY Metropolitan Statistical Area based on a population above 1,000,000 and the most recent 3 

year design value >=85% of the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Table 1 shows the design values for the years 2001-2010 (i.e., design value for a monitoring site is 

calculated by averaging the 98th percentile value of 24-hour values for each of three consecutive years) for the 

counties in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area. The 24-hour design values for all FRM monitors in the 

three States located within the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area since 2001 can be found in Appendix A. 

3

 Section 319 of the CAA requires EPA to establish a uniform air quality index for reporting of air quality. This section 

specifically directs the Administrator to ‘‘promulgate regulations establishing an air quality monitoring system throughout 

the United States which utilizes uniform air quality monitoring criteria and methodology and measures such air quality 

according to a uniform air quality index’’ and ‘‘provides for daily analysis and reporting of air quality based upon such 

uniform air quality index” 
6

As shown in Table 1, none of the design values for the periods of 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 in the NY-NJ-CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area exceed the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35.0 μg/m3

. 

A map showing the locations of all FRM monitoring locations in the nonattainment area is shown in 

Figure 1. 
 

7

Table 1.--Design Values4 by County for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-NJ-CT monitors in micrograms per 

cubic meter (ug/m3

). The standard for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 35.0 μg/m3. 

County 01-03 DV 02-04 DV 03-05 DV 04-06 DV 05-07 DV 06-08 DV 07-09 DV 08-10 DV 20115

NY

Bronx 40 40 40 39 38 36 33 29 27 

Kings 37 38 38 37 36 34 30 27 24 

Nassau6 34 34 35 33 INC INC INC 25 23 

New York7 42 42 42 41 39 37 338 31

8 27 

Orange 30 30 29 28 29 28 26 24 21 

Queens 38 37 36 INC INC 32 30 28 25 

Richmond 39 39 37 34 34 30 29 26 24 

Rockland NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 

Suffolk 36 35 35 INC INC 29 26 25 22 

Westchester 34 34 34 34 33 32 29 28 23 

NJ

Bergen 36 35 37 37 38 35 31 28 24 

Essex9 37 38 38 38 38 INC 30

8

26

8 24 

Hudson 40 40 41 39 41 38 32 29 26 

Mercer 37 37 36 34 34 33 29 27 28 

Middlesex 36 36 38 34 32 31 27 23 21 

 

4

 PM2.5 Design Values can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html 5

 2011 data reported is the 98th percentile concentration from complete and quality assured data for the highest reading 

monitor in the county for 2011. 

6

 The monitor located in Nassau County had incomplete data for 2007 which lead to the inability to calculate design values 

for the periods of 2005-2007, 2006-2008, and 2007-2008. The monitor did not show previous violations and therefore it was 

deemed that determining the design values though alternative procedures was not necessary. The 2008-2010 design value 

was 25 μg/m3. 

7

 The monitor in New York County located at Public School 59 was the highest reading monitor at the time EPA made 

designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQ. Midway through 2008, the monitor at PS 59 was shut down due to the 

demolition of the building site. Missing 2008 data had an effect on calculating the design value for the 24-hour standard. 

EPA used an alternative procedure to determine the design value for the 24-hour standard. A description of the alternate 

procedure can be found in Section V. 

8

 Design Value was calculated using the alternative procedure described in Section V of the Technical Support Document. 

9

 The air monitor at the Newark Willis Center station in Essex County was discontinued on July 24, 2008 due to an 

unexpected loss of access, and replaced with a new monitor at the Newark Firehouse. PM2.5 monitoring was established at 

the firehouse on May 13, 2009. EPA used an alternative procedure to determine the design value for the 24-hour standard. A 

description of the alternate procedure can be found in Section V. 
Monmouth NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 

Morris 38 35 34 31 32 29 26 23 24 

Passaic 37 36 37 35 37 33 30 INC 25 

Somerset NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 

Union 41 41 41 41 39 36 32

8 30 33 

CT

Fairfield 38 36 37 36 35 33 31 28 29 

New Haven 40 39 40 38 36 34 31 29 28 

NM- No monitor located in county 

INC- Incomplete data for time period. All counties listed as INC for time period did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement 

Figure 1: PM2.5 FRM monitor locations in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area

8
 

9

The States of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut have been very diligent in the number and placement 

of PM2.5 monitors in the nonattainment area. EPA meets annually with each state to discuss any problems or 

issues concerning the State’s air monitoring data and/or network. In addition, EPA and the States 

communicate many times during the year so that issues can be addressed as they show up. EPA regulations 

require states to submit annual network plans to their respective Regions. These plans outline the current 

networks and any proposed changes in the upcoming 18 months. Regions 1 and 2 have always been able to 

approve these plans due to the high quality of the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut monitoring 

networks. Copies of the approved annual network review letters can be found in the Appendix C. 

IV. MONITORING SITES WITH INCOMPLETE DATA 

The following monitoring sites had incomplete monitoring data during 2006-2008, 2007-2009, and/or 

2008-2010, had previously violated the 2006 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and did not have clean data 

subsequent to their latest violation. EPA determined that the reasons behind incomplete quarters were 

valid and eligible for the data substitution method presented in Section V. 

A. NEWARK-WILLIS CENTER: AQS ID 340130015 

The air monitor at the Newark Willis Center station is located in Newark, Essex County, NJ. 

The monitor was discontinued on July 24, 2008 due to an unexpected loss of access. Since there was no 

monitoring at this site for approximately half of 2008 to the present, design values were incomplete that 

involve 2008 or later years (2006-2008, 2007-2009, and 2008-2010). 

A new monitor at the Newark Firehouse was established to replace the monitor at the NewarkWillis Center on May 13, 2009. The discontinuation and replacement of the monitor at the Newark 

Willis Center was approved by EPA. 

B. ELIZABETH LAB: AQS ID 340390004 

The air monitor located in Elizabeth, Union County, NJ is a long standing monitor that was 

established in 1970. This monitor had incomplete data capture for 2nd quarter 2008 and very low data 

capture for 3rd quarter 2008. The less than adequate data capture for 2008 and violating design value for 

2007-2009 were the reasons behind EPA performing additional analysis to determine if the monitor met 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has not found any anomalies with the missing data and 

approves of using data substitution for calculating a 2007-2009 design value. 

C. PS 59 MONITORING SITE: AQS ID: 360610056 

The design value monitor for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area was located on the roof of public 

School 59 in New York County. The PS 59 monitor was the highest reading monitor at the time EPA 

made designations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009. 

The monitor began operating in 1999 and operated reliably with the exception of the third quarter of 

2003. The monitor shut down due to roof repairs at PS 59. Ambient monitoring was resumed at this site 

in October 2003. 
10

The site operated until mid 2008, when monitoring was discontinued permanently due to the building 

demolition of PS 59. This was a planned shutdown and although New York could have shut the monitor 

down at the beginning of the year, the state chose to continue operation as long as possible to collect 

data. Unfortunately, the monitor at this location could not be replaced because the roof of the new 

building did not meet the criteria of a valid monitoring site under 40 CFR part 86, Appendix E. NY and 

EPA could not locate a suitable replacement monitoring site in the immediate vicinity of PS 59 that 

would also meet siting criteria. 

D. CANAL STREET: AQS ID 360610062 

 

 The Canal Street monitoring site started up in August of 1999. It was shut down in March 2007 

due to a hotel next door purchasing the rights to the roof of the building. The state had notified EPA 

well in advance of this happening, thus making this a planned shutdown. 

E. PS 19 MONITORING SITE: AQS ID 360610128 

The monitor located at Public School 19 had incomplete design values for 2006-2008, 2007-

2009, and 2008-2010. The monitor began operation in October 2001. The monitor had two periods of 

time where complete data was not recorded: 2nd thru 4th quarters of 2008, and the 1st quarter of 2009 due 

to roof repair issues. Ambient monitoring was resumed at this site in March 2009. EPA has not found 

any anomalies with the missing data and approves of using data substitution for calculating 2007-2009 

and 2008-2010 design values. 

V. EPA’S ANALYSIS OF MONITORING SITES WITH INCOMPLETE DATA 

A. Analysis of Air Quality Data 

 EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for PM2.5, consistent with the requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 50 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System database for the NY-NJ-CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area from 2001 through the present time. Currently all operating monitors are 

meeting the 24-hour standard of 35.0 μg/m3

. All complete 24-hour PM2.5 3-year average concentrations 

have been below the NAAQS since 2007-2009. Appendix A shows the 24-hour design values for 

monitors in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area. There has been a declining trend in 3-year 

averages for monitors with complete data since 2001. Appendix B contains graphs which show the 

downward trend of 24-hour PM2.5 averages in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area. Certified, 

complete, and quality assured data for 2011 continues to show the declining trend. 

 Five sites (discussed in Section IV) in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area had previously 

shown violations of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and have not posted valid attaining design values due to 

incomplete data since EPA finalized its air quality designations on November 13, 2009. In order to 

determine whether the NAAQS has been attained for sites with incomplete data, EPA has developed a 

procedure to address the missing data, and determine valid design values for those sites for the 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard for 2007-2009 and 2008-2010. EPA had previously used this procedure to determine 

attainment for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area. See 75 FR 

45076, 75 FR 45079 and 75 FR 69589 for information regarding the annual NY-NJ-CT PM2.5
 

11

nonattainment area. 

 EPA examined the two most recent 3-year time periods for the five monitors that had previously 

violated the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and had not posted attaining design values. The two most recent 

periods helped demonstrate the declining trend of 24-hour PM2.5 in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment 

area. Certified, complete, and quality assured data for 2011 continues to show the declining trend. 

B. Addressing Missing Data 

An objective statistical method was used to determine if previously violating monitors in the NY-NJCT PM2.5 nonattainment area that lack complete data would have met the NAAQS in subsequent time 

periods. 

The general concept behind the statistical method to determine whether an incomplete monitor 

(target) would have met the NAAQS is to establish a linear regression relationship between the target 

monitor and another monitor in the nonattainment area (candidate). The linear regression would then be 

used to fill in the missing data for the target monitor. The results are checked with an additional 

statistical technique, known as bootstrapping, to verify if the conclusion of attainment is correct. The 

NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area has 42 monitoring locations which provide an ample number of 

monitors to compare to the target monitor. 

The five previously violating monitors in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area that the statistical 

method was used on were in New Jersey: Newark-Willis Center and Elizabeth Lab; and in New York: 

PS 59, Canal Street and PS 19. EPA found that all of these monitors had valid reasons for having 

incomplete data during the time periods used in this analysis. Descriptions of these monitors can be 

found in Section IV. 

Concept for determining design values

The concept behind the method for determining design values (DVs) for the monitors with 

incomplete data is to establish a linear regression relationship between the target site with incomplete 

data and another site in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area which has more complete data in the 

period in which the target site is data deficient. The linear regression relationship would be based on 

time periods in which both the target and candidate monitors were operating. The linear regression 

equation developed from the relationship between the target and candidate monitors was used to fill in 

missing data for the target site in any quarter in the most recent three-year period that did not have 75 

percent completeness based on actual observations, so that the normal data completeness requirement of 

75 percent of data in each quarter of the three years is met. After the missing data for the sites was filled 

in, the results were verified through an additional statistical test. The additional statistical test used, 

referred to as bootstrapping, examines the differences between the predicted fill in concentrations and 

the actual observed concentrations to determine if the design values for the monitors with incomplete 

data meet the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5. 
12

Eligibility

Eligibility criteria was established in order to assure that the method used to determine design 

values for the target monitors in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area were robust enough to allow 

consideration of the results in a weight of evidence decision. EPA has not established bright lines or 

specific requirements for determining design values for sites with less than complete data using this 

method. EPA has determined that this method is applicable to this specific situation due to the 

robustness of the monitoring network, historical diligence in operation of monitors, and valid reasons for 

incomplete data. 

Operating period 

Candidate monitors would have operated during the 3-year period (2007-2009 and/or 2008-

2010) in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area in which the target monitor has incomplete data in 

order to establish a significant relationship between the monitors. Candidate monitors do not necessarily 

have to have complete data in all 12 quarters of the 3-year period, but candidate monitors would have 

enough observations to allow it to be used to fill in enough missing days for target monitor so that the 

target monitor will end up with at least 75 percent completeness in all 12 quarters of the respective 3-

year period. 

Paired samples 

Pairs of sample data for target monitors and candidate monitors from the 2007-2009 and/or 

2008-2010 periods of operation of the target monitors were used. The “period of operation” of the target 

monitors was based on the date of the last reported sample from the monitor. Candidate monitors had at 

least 100 historical sample pairs in common with target monitors during this period. When there were 

more than 100 pairs in the 5-year period all available pairs were used. In addition to the 100 pairs over 

the 5-year period, candidate monitors had at least 20 paired days of data in common with the target 

monitors for each calendar quarter (adding together the number of days in a given calendar quarter [Q1, 

Q2, Q3, or Q4] across the 5-year period). 

Several candidate sites met the eligibility criteria of 100 pairs over the 20-quarters, and at least 

20 paired days of data in common with the target monitors for each calendar quarter. 

Method for determining design values

The following are the steps used in determining design values for incomplete periods for the NewarkWillis Center, Elizabeth Lab, PS 59, Canal Street and PS 19 monitors in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 

nonattainment area. The analysis was performed for each monitor twice, once for the 2007-2009 period 

and once for the 2008-2010 period (except for Elizabeth Lab which had a complete DV for that time 

period). 

Step 1 – Organize data and perform linear regression(s) between target monitor and candidate monitors. 

All the available paired data within the period limit described in the Eligibility section was used to 

develop a linear regression to predict target concentrations from candidate concentrations. A regression 

was performed for each possible pairing that met the criteria utilized for 100 data points and 20 data 
 

13

points per calendar quarter (across all years) in the last 20 quarters of the 3-year time period for each 

candidate monitor in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Step 2 – Select Candidate site 

The NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area has a large number of monitors which could have been used as 

candidate sites. Only one candidate monitor was selected for each target monitor. The follow steps 

were used to select the candidate monitor. 

1) Candidate monitors were placed into order of highest correlation (highest r-squared in the linear 

regression) with the target. 

2) Using the regression equation relating concentrations at the target monitor and the candidate monitor, 

estimates of the 24-hour average concentrations were made at the target monitor for all missing 

scheduled days in the initially incomplete quarters in the most recent three-year period at the target. 

Estimates were only made for days on which a concentration is available at the candidate monitor. 

Estimates were not made for any days in quarters for which the target had 75 percent or more complete 

data initially. The estimates were combined with any reported data at the target in the recent 3-year 

period and the data capture rates were computed for each originally incomplete quarter. The 

computation of data capture rates required an assumption that the required sampling frequency for the 

Target was recorded. If the candidate monitor had a lower sampling frequency than the target, some 

missing scheduled days for the target were not substituted for the regression-based estimates. When the 

Candidate monitor had a lower sampling frequency than the target, the target sampling schedule was 

assumed to be a combination of the target and candidate schedules, weighted by the number of 

originally present and originally missing scheduled days at the Target. 

3) If after performing the process in #2 results in all 12 quarters at the target having at least 75 percent of 

scheduled values, the candidate monitor was selected as the candidate for the remaining steps. If 75 

percent of the scheduled values for the target were not obtained, the steps in #2 were repeated for the 

next best correlated other site. This process was repeated until the Target had 75 percent of its 

scheduled values. 

Step 3 – Design Value Computed 

The three-year design value was calculated using the actual observations of the target and the 

regression-based estimates of daily concentrations. The design values for the five target monitors in the 

NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area were both below the NAAQS 

Step 4 –Statistical confidence of a design value below the NAAQS checked 

The results of Step 3 showed design values for the five target monitors in NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 

nonattainment area to be below the NAAQS. In order to show that there is at most a 10 percent 

probability that the actual design value (had the target monitors operated more days) was above the 

NAAQS further analysis was performed as follows: 
(a) Residuals were calculated from the regression. 

(b) A bootstrap analysis was performed, repeating the regression-based substitution in Step 2 but 

adding to each estimated 24-hour value that substitutes for a missing scheduled monitored value a plus 

or minus residual that has been randomly drawn (with replacement) from the pool of regression 

residuals. This step randomly applies real residuals from the linear regression to the imputed currentperiod target values. 

(c) Repeat (b) for a total of 1000 runs. 

(d) For each of the 1000 bootstrap trials, the 3-year design value was calculated. This will provide a 

pseudo confidence interval for the partially imputed current-period design value for the target. 

(e) Since none of the 1000 runs resulted in a design values above the NAAQS, the targets were 

considered to have met the NAAQS. 

 

C. Results of Regression Analysis 

Determining the design value for Newark-Willis Center (AQS ID 340130015)

Steps 1 and 2 were performed with Newark Willis Center as the target monitor. On Figures 2, 3, 6 and 

7, the Newark-Willis Center monitor (target) is listed as Site A. All the candidate sites that were used 

are listed as Site B. The highest correlating monitor for 2007-2009 was located at the Mitchell Building 

in Elizabeth, Union County (AQS ID 340390006). The Mitchell Building monitor had sufficient 

correlation and data capture to develop a regression equation between the target and candidate monitor. 

The results of the regression can be found in Figure 4. The regression was used to fill in missing values 

for the Newark-Willis Center monitor to yield a design value for 2007-2009. For 2008-2010, Newark 

Firehouse (AQS ID 340171003) had sufficient correlation and data capture to develop a regression 

equation between the target and candidate monitor. The Mitchell Building monitor did not have 

sufficient paired data to establish a good relationship due to incomplete data for quarter 1 of 2010. The 

results of the 2008-2010 regressions can be found in Figure 8. The results of the analysis produced 

design values of 30 μg/m3

 and 26 μg/m3 for 2007-2009 and 2008-2010, respectively. The design values 

for both time periods passed the boostrapping test described in Step 4 (Figures 5 and 9) which provides 

statistical confidence that the monitor at Newark-Willis Center would have attained the 24-hour PM2.5 

NAAQS. 

Figure 2: Monitor correlations with Newark-Willis Center and candidate monitors for 2007-2009

npairsQ1 npairsQ2 npairsQ3 npairsQ4 corr

New York, 340130015 340130015 32 inc-a 32 inc-a 166 157 144 138 1

New York, 340130015 340390006 32 inc-a 31 A 149 142 129 121 0.971616

New York, 340130015 340171003 32 inc-a 32 A 161 151 136 132 0.965167

New York, 340130015 340390004 32 inc-a 32 inc-a 160 144 134 134 0.961005

New York, 340130015 340030003 32 inc-a 31 A 150 141 139 127 0.957764

New York, 340130015 360610079 32 inc-a 32 A 163 149 142 134 0.955341

New York, 340130015 360610134 32 inc-a 33 inc-a 20 46 39 29 0.954282

Area Site A Site B DV Site 

A

DV 

status 

Site A

DV Site 

B

DV 

status 

Site B

20-quarter look 

14
 

15

Figure 3: Data capture for Newark Willis Center and candidate monitors for 2007-2009

Figure 4: Newark Willis Center and Mitchell Building regression results for 2007-2009. The computed Newark Willis 

Center: Mitchell Building linear relationship is: 

Newark Willis Center concentration = -0.031539 + 0.984558 * Mitchell Building concentration 

2007 Q1 2007 Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2008 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2009 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4

340130015 90% 80% 100% 97% 94% 87% 26%

340390006 90% 90% 74% 87% 97% 93% 90% 100% 87% 100% 100% 90%

340171003 98% 97% 76% 89% 95% 88% 83% 95% 91% 89% 100% 89%

340390004 99% 88% 97% 93% 89% 60% 76% 99% 98% 86% 99% 97%

340030003 97% 90% 100% 100% 94% 83% 81% 90% 97% 97% 100% 84%

360610079 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100%

360610134 10% 100% 100% 100% 61% 93% 97% 93% 100% 97% 93% 100%

Quarterly Data Capture, 2007-2009

Site B

v_a

0

10

20

30

40

50

v_b

0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 5: Bootstrapping results from the 1000 simulations for the Newark Willis Center for 2007-2009. “dv” is the 

resulting design value after application of residuals from linear regression. “ct” is the number of simulations that 

yielded that specific design value. None of the simulations produced a violating design value. 

Figure 6: Monitor correlations with Newark-Willis Center and candidate monitors for 2008-2010. 

Figure 7: Data capture for Newark Willis Center and candidate monitors for 2008-2010. 

npairsQ1 npairsQ2 npairsQ3 npairsQ4 corr

New York 340130015 340130015 29 inc-a 29 inc-a 137 131 144 138 1

New York 340130015 340390006 29 inc-a 27 A 121 119 129 121 0.972045

New York 340130015 340171003 29 inc-a 29 A 132 127 136 132 0.965867

New York 340130015 340390004 29 inc-a 30 A 132 120 134 134 0.962916

New York 340130015 340030003 29 inc-a 28 A 124 117 139 127 0.958111

New York 340130015 360610079 29 inc-a 29 A 134 123 142 134 0.956101

New York 340130015 360610134 29 inc-a 29 A 20 46 39 29 0.954282

New York 340130015 340392003 29 inc-a 26 A 124 112 131 129 0.953898

New York 340130015 360470122 29 inc-a 27 A 121 120 130 126 0.953835

New York 340130015 340172002 29 inc-a 29 A 79 69 80 82 0.952322

Area Site A Site B DV Site 

A

DV 

status 

Site A

DV Site 

B

DV 

status 

Site B

20-quarter look (2003-Q3 - 2008-Q2)

2008 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2009 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2010 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4

340130015 94% 87% 26% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

340390006 97% 93% 90% 100% 87% 100% 100% 90% 67% 100% 97% 87%

340171003 95% 88% 83% 95% 91% 89% 100% 89% 96% 99% 100% 90%

340390004 89% 60% 76% 99% 98% 86% 99% 97% 90% 97% 93% 98%

340030003 94% 83% 81% 90% 97% 97% 100% 84% 100% 97% 100% 97%

360610079 97% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 90%

360610134 61% 93% 97% 93% 100% 97% 93% 100% 83% 97% 97% 100%

340392003 94% 73% 97% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 83% 100% 100% 100%

360470122 81% 90% 94% 93% 93% 100% 77% 97% 93% 100% 84% 94%

340172002 100% 67% 94% 100% 97% 97% 97% 94% 80% 100% 97% 90%

Quarterly Data Capture, 2008-2010

Site B

16
 

17

Figure 8: Newark Willis Center and Newark Firehouse regression results for 2008-2010. The computed Newark 

Willis Center: Newark Firehouse linear relationship is: 

Newark Willis Center concentration = -0.34544 + 0.95545 * Newark Firehouse concentration 

Figure 9: Bootstrapping results from the 1000 simulations for the Newark Willis Center for 2008-2010. “dv” is the 

resulting design value after application of residuals from linear regression. “ct” is the number of simulations that 

yielded that specific design value. None of the simulations produced a violating design value. 

Determining the design value for Elizabeth Lab (AQS ID 340390004)

Elizabeth Lab only had an incomplete design value for 2007-2009. Steps 1 and 2 were performed with 

Elizabeth Lab as the target monitor. On Figures 10 and 11, the Elizabeth Lab monitor (target) is listed 

as Site A. All the candidate sites that were used are listed as Site B. The highest correlating monitor for 

2007-2009 was located at the Mitchell Building in Elizabeth, Union County (AQS ID 340390006). The 

Mitchell Building monitor had sufficient correlation and data capture to develop a regression equation 

between the target and candidate monitor. The results of the regression can be found in Figure 12. The 

regression was used to fill in missing values for the Elizabeth Lab monitor to yield a design value for 

2007-2009. The results of the analysis produced 2007-2009 design value of 32 μg/m3

. The design value 

v_a

0

10

20

30

40

50

v_b

0 10 20 30 40 50
passed the boostrapping test described in Step 4 (Figure 13) which provides statistical confidence that 

the monitor at Elizabeth Lab is attaining the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Figure 10: Monitor correlations with Elizabeth Lab and candidate monitors for 2007-2009. 

Figure 11: Data capture for Elizabeth Lab and candidate monitors for 2007-2009. 

Figure 12: Elizabeth Lab and Mitchell Building regression results for 2007-2009. The computed Elizabeth Lab: 

Mitchell Building linear relationship is: 

npairsQ1 npairsQ2 npairsQ3 npairsQ4 corr

New York, 340390004 340390004 32 inc-a 32 inc-a 506 474 504 523 1

New York, 340390004 340390006 32 inc-a 31 A 151 151 163 190 0.966399

New York, 340390004 340130015 32 inc-a 32 inc-a 107 96 88 84 0.964194

New York, 340390004 340392003 32 inc-a 30 inc-a 163 152 163 172 0.962078

New York, 340390004 340171003 32 inc-a 32 A 380 336 363 383 0.95619

New York, 340390004 340130003 32 inc-a 25 inc-a 28 27 59 58 0.954873

Area Site A Site B DV Site 

A

DV 

status 

Site A

DV Site 

B

DV 

status 

Site B

20-quarter look 

v_a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

v_b

0 10 20 30 40 50

18

Elizabeth Lab concentration = 1.261699 + 1.02085 * Mitchell Building concentration 
 

19

Figure 13: Bootstrapping results from the 1000 simulations for the Elizabeth Lab for 2007-2009. “dv” is the resulting 

etermining the design value for PS 59 (AQS ID: 360610056)

design value after application of residuals from linear regression. “ct” is the number of simulations that yielded that 

specific design value. None of the simulations produced a violating design value. 

D

 On Figures 14, 15, 18, and 19, the PS 

 for 

n 

Figure 14: Monitor correlations with PS 59 and candidate monitors for 2007-2009. 

Steps 1 and 2 were performed with PS 59 as the target monitor. 

59 monitor (target) is listed as Site A. All the candidate sites that were used are listed as Site B. The 

highest correlating monitor for 2007-2009 was located at Queens College, Queens County (AQS ID 

360810124). The Queens College monitor had sufficient correlation and data capture to develop a 

regression equation between the target and candidate monitor. The results of the regression can be 

found in Figure 16. Other monitors that had good correlation but did not have sufficient paired data

2007-2009 were PS 124 (AQS ID 360610134), PS 19 (AQS ID 360610128), and Pfizer Lab (AQS ID 

360050133). The regression using Queens College as the candidate monitor was used to fill in missing 

values for the PS 59 monitor to yield a design value for 2007-2009. For 2008-2010, Queens College 

(AQS ID 360810124) again had sufficient correlation and data capture to develop a regression equatio

between the target and candidate monitor. The results of the regression can be found in Figure 20. The 

PS 124 monitor did not have sufficient paired data and incomplete data for quarter 1 of 2008. Other 

monitors, the same as for 2007-2009, that had good correlation but did not have sufficient paired data 

for 2008-2010 were PS 124, PS 19, and Pfizer Lab. The results of the analysis produced design values

of 33 μg/m3

 and 31 μg/m3 for 2007-2009 and 2008-2010, respectively. The design values for both time 

periods passed the boostrapping test described in Step 4 (Figures 17 and 21) which provides statistical 

confidence that the monitor at PS 59 would have attained the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

npairsQ1 npairsQ2 npairsQ3 npairsQ4 corr

New York, 360610056 360610056 35 inc-a 35 inc-a 152 146 121 146 1

New York, 360610056 360610134 35 inc-a 33 inc-a 22 54 31 30 0.980713

New York, 360610056 360610128 35 inc-a 31 inc-a 132 131 117 134 0.976113

New York, 360610056 360050133 35 inc-a 29 inc-a 27 28 0.966112

New York, 360610056 360810124 35 inc-a 30 A 136 138 99 130 0.958301

New York, 360610056 360610079 35 inc-a 32 A 150 144 120 144 0.957539

New York, 360610056 360470122 35 inc-a 30 A 138 140 111 135 0.95364

New York, 360610056 360050110 35 inc-a 32 A 152 146 121 145 0.949793

Area Site A Site B DV Site 

A

DV 

status 

Site A

DV Site 

B

DV 

status 

Site B

20-quarter look 
Figure 15: Data capture for PS 59 and candidate monitors for 2007-2009. 

Figure 16: PS 59 and Queens College regression results for 2007-2009. The computed PS 59: Queens College linear 

relationship is: PS 59 concentration = 3.193116 + 1.027248 * Queens College concentration 

Figure 17: Bootstrapping results from the 1000 simulations for the PS 59 for 2007-2009. “dv” is the resulting design 

value after application of residuals from linear regression. “ct” is the number of simulations that yielded that specific 

design value. None of the simulations produced a violating design value. 

2007 Q1 2007 Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2008 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2009 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4

360610056 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 93%

360610134 10% 100% 100% 100% 61% 93% 97% 93% 100% 97% 93% 100%

360610128 100% 100% 94% 70% 77% 50% 30% 97% 93% 87%

360050133 87% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100%

360810124 82% 95% 87% 100% 99% 98% 99% 96% 100% 99% 93% 88%

360610079 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100%

360470122 97% 100% 90% 100% 81% 90% 94% 93% 93% 100% 77% 97%

360050110 99% 92% 92% 99% 87% 92% 96% 100% 100% 89% 89% 98%

Quarterly Data Capture, 2007-2009

Site B

v_a

0

10

20

30

40

50

v_b

0 10 20 30 40 50

20
 

21

Figure 18: Monitor correlations with PS 59 and candidate monitors for 2008-2010. 

Figure 19: Data capture for PS 59 and candidate monitors for 2008-2010. 

npairsQ1 npairsQ2 npairsQ3 npairsQ4 corr

New York 360610056 360610056 33 inc-a 33 inc-a 152 146 121 146 1

New York 360610056 360610134 33 inc-a 29 A 22 54 31 30 0.980713

New York 360610056 360610128 33 inc-a 27 inc-a 132 131 117 134 0.976113

New York 360610056 360050133 33 inc-a 27 A 27 28 0.966112

New York 360610056 360810124 33 inc-a 28 A 136 138 99 130 0.958301

New York 360610056 360610079 33 inc-a 29 A 150 144 120 144 0.957539

New York 360610056 360470122 33 inc-a 27 A 138 140 111 135 0.95364

New York 360610056 360050110 33 inc-a 29 inc-a 152 146 121 145 0.949793

New York 360610056 360050080 33 inc-a 29 A 141 142 114 138 0.948624

New York 360610056 340171003 33 inc-a 29 A 148 137 112 140 0.942114

Area Site A Site B DV Site 

A

DV 

status 

Site A

DV Site 

B

DV 

status 

Site B

20-quarter look (2003-Q3 - 2008-Q2)

2008 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2009 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2010 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4

360610056 100% 93% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

360610134 61% 93% 97% 93% 100% 97% 93% 100% 83% 97% 97% 100%

360610128 77% 50% 0% 0% 30% 97% 93% 87% 100% 93% 94% 100%

360050133 87% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100%

360810124 99% 98% 99% 96% 100% 99% 93% 88% 100% 100% 91% 93%

360610079 97% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 90%

360470122 81% 90% 94% 93% 93% 100% 77% 97% 93% 100% 84% 94%

360050110 87% 92% 96% 100% 100% 89% 89% 98% 96% 79% 0% 0%

360050080 94% 97% 97% 93% 100% 81% 93% 87% 100% 87% 91% 95%

340171003 95% 88% 83% 95% 91% 89% 100% 89% 96% 99% 100% 90%

Quarterly Data Capture, 2008-2010

Site B
22

Figure 20: PS 59 and Queens College regression results for 2008-2010. The computed PS 59: Queens College linear 

relationship is: PS 59 concentration = 3.19312 + 1.02725 * Queens College concentration 

Figure 21: Bootstrapping results from the 1000 simulations for the PS 59 for 2008-2010. “dv” is the resulting design 

value after application of residuals from linear regression. “ct” is the number of simulations that yielded that specific 

design value. None of the simulations produced a violating design value. 

Determining the design value for Canal Street (AQS ID 360610062)

Steps 1 and 2 were performed with Canal Street as the target monitor. On Figures 22, 23, 26 and 27, the 

Canal Street monitor (target) is listed as Site A. All the candidate sites that were used are listed as Site 

B. The highest correlating monitor for 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 was located at JHS 126, Kings 

County (AQS ID 360470122). The JHS 126 monitor had sufficient correlation and data capture to 

develop a regression equation between the target and candidate monitor for 2007-2009 and 2008-2010. 

The results of the regressions can be found in Figures 24 and 28. The results of the analysis produced 

design values of 30 μg/m3

 and 28 μg/m3 for 2007-2009 and 2008-2010, respectively. The design values 

for both time periods passed the bootstrapping test described in Step 4 (Figures 25 and 29) which 

provides statistical confidence that the monitor at Canal Street would have attained the 24-hour PM2.5 

NAAQS. 

v_a

0

10

20

30

40

50

v_b

0 10 20 30 40 50
 

23

Figure 22: Monitor correlations with Canal Street and candidate monitors for 2007-2009. 

Figure 23: Data capture for Canal Street and candidate monitors for 2007-2009. 

Figure 24: Canal Street and JHS 126 regression results for 2007-2009. The computed Canal Street: JHS 126 

relationship is: Canal Street concentration = 0.677334 + 0.997611 * JHS 126 concentration 

npairsQ1 npairsQ2 npairsQ3 npairsQ4 corr

360610062 360610062 35 inc-a 35 inc-a 175 139 148 149 1

360610062 360470122 35 inc-a 30 A 160 132 136 137 0.982028

360610062 360610079 35 inc-a 32 A 171 137 146 146 0.980414

360610062 340171003 35 inc-a 32 A 170 131 141 143 0.976562

360610062 360050110 35 inc-a 32 A 174 137 148 148 0.970477

360610062 360610128 35 inc-a 31 inc-a 135 137 144 142 0.969341

360610062 340172002 35 inc-a 33 inc-a 74 28 46 56 0.968423

Site A Site B DV Site 

A

DV 

status 

Site A

DV Site 

B

DV 

status 

Site B

20-quarter look 

2007 Q1 2007 Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2008 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2009 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4

360610062 90%

360470122 97% 100% 90% 100% 81% 90% 94% 93% 93% 100% 77% 97%

360610079 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100%

340171003 98% 97% 76% 89% 95% 88% 83% 95% 91% 89% 100% 89%

360050110 99% 92% 92% 99% 87% 92% 96% 100% 100% 89% 89% 98%

360610128 100% 100% 94% 70% 77% 50% 30% 97% 93% 87%

340172002 100% 90% 90% 90% 100% 67% 94% 100% 97% 97% 97% 94%

Quarterly Data Capture, 2007-2009

Site B

v_a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

v_b

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 25: Bootstrapping results from the 1000 simulations for the Canal Street for 2007-2009. “dv” is the resulting 

design value after application of residuals from linear regression. “ct” is the number of simulations that yielded that 

specific design value. None of the simulations produced a violating design value. 

Figure 26: Monitor correlations with Canal Street and candidate monitors for 2008-2010. 

Figure 27: Data capture for Canal Street and candidate monitors for 2008-2010. 

npairsQ1 npairsQ2 npairsQ3 npairsQ4 corr

New York 360610062 360610062 ? ? ? ? 175 139 148 149 1

New York 360610062 360470122 ? ? 27 A 160 132 136 137 0.982028

New York 360610062 360610079 ? ? 29 A 171 137 146 146 0.980414

New York 360610062 340171003 ? ? 29 A 170 131 141 143 0.976562

New York 360610062 360050110 ? ? 29 inc-a 174 137 148 148 0.970477

New York 360610062 360610128 ? ? 27 inc-a 135 137 144 142 0.969341

New York 360610062 340172002 ? ? 29 A 74 28 46 56 0.968423

New York 360610062 360610056 ? ? 33 inc-a 173 139 118 143 0.966599

New York 360610062 360050080 ? ? 29 A 162 136 142 139 0.965321

New York 360610062 360810124 ? ? 28 A 153 128 123 128 0.964161

Area Site A Site B DV Site 

A

DV 

status 

Site A

DV Site 

B

DV 

status 

Site B

20-quarter look (2002-Q1 - 2007-Q1)

2008 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2009 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2010 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4

360610062 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

360470122 81% 90% 94% 93% 93% 100% 77% 97% 93% 100% 84% 94%

360610079 97% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 90%

340171003 95% 88% 83% 95% 91% 89% 100% 89% 96% 99% 100% 90%

360050110 87% 92% 96% 100% 100% 89% 89% 98% 96% 79% 0% 0%

360610128 77% 50% 0% 0% 30% 97% 93% 87% 100% 93% 94% 100%

340172002 100% 67% 94% 100% 97% 97% 97% 94% 80% 100% 97% 90%

360610056 100% 93% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

360050080 94% 97% 97% 93% 100% 81% 93% 87% 100% 87% 91% 95%

360810124 99% 98% 99% 96% 100% 99% 93% 88% 100% 100% 91% 93%

Quarterly Data Capture, 2008-2010

Site B

24
 

25

Figure 28: Canal Street and JHS 126 regression results for 2008-2010. The computed Canal Street: JHS 126 

relationship is: Canal Street concentration = 0.67733 + 0.99761 * JHS 126 concentration 

Figure 29: Bootstrapping results from the 1000 simulations for the Canal Street for 2008-2010. “dv” is the resulting 

design value after application of residuals from linear regression. “ct” is the number of simulations that yielded that 

specific design value. None of the simulations produced a violating design value. 

Determining the design value for PS 19 (AQS ID: 360610128)

Steps 1 and 2 were performed with PS 19 as the target monitor. On Figures 30, 31, 34, and 35, the PS 

19 monitor (target) is listed as Site A. All the candidate sites that were used are listed as Site B. The 

highest correlating monitor with sufficient paired data with PS 19 for 2007-2009 was PS 124, New York 

County (AQS ID 360610134). The results of the regression can be found in Figure 32. PS 59 and Pfizer 

Lab had higher correlations but lacked sufficient pairs due to incomplete quarters. PS 59 had 

incomplete data, due to shutdown, from 3rd quarter of 2008 through the present and Pfizer Lab had 

incomplete data for 2007. The highest correlating monitor with sufficient paired data with PS 19 for 

2008-2010 was located at Pfizer Lab. The results of the 2008-2010 regression can be found in Figure 36. 

The results of the analysis produced design values of 32 μg/m3

 and 28 μg/m3 for 2007-2009 and 2008-

v_a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

v_b

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
2010, respectively. The design values for both time periods passed the boostrapping test described in 

Step 4 (Figures 33 and 37) which provides statistical confidence that the monitor at PS 19 is attaining 

the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Figure 30: Monitor correlations with PS 19 and candidate monitors for 2007-2009. 

Figure 31: Data capture for PS 19 and candidate monitors for 2007-2009. 

npairsQ1 npairsQ2 npairsQ3 npairsQ4 corr

New York, 360610128 360610128 31 inc-a 31 inc-a 144 164 145 139 1

New York, 360610128 360610056 31 inc-a 35 inc-a 105 101 84 81 0.974468

New York, 360610128 360050133 31 inc-a 29 inc-a 60 73 56 57 0.965357

New York, 360610128 360610134 31 inc-a 33 inc-a 53 100 83 78 0.960733

New York, 360610128 360470122 31 inc-a 30 A 132 160 129 126 0.945033

New York, 360610128 360810124 31 inc-a 30 A 130 157 120 127 0.944688

New York, 360610128 360610079 31 inc-a 32 A 143 164 144 136 0.943699

Area Site A Site B DV Site 

A

DV 

status 

Site A

DV Site 

B

DV 

status 

Site B

20-quarter look 

2007 Q1 2007 Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2008 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2009 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4

360610128 100% 100% 94% 70% 77% 50% 30% 97% 93% 87%

360610056 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 93%

360050133 87% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100%

360610134 10% 100% 100% 100% 61% 93% 97% 93% 100% 97% 93% 100%

360470122 97% 100% 90% 100% 81% 90% 94% 93% 93% 100% 77% 97%

360810124 82% 95% 87% 100% 99% 98% 99% 96% 100% 99% 93% 88%

360610079 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Quarterly Data Capture, 2007-2009

Site B

26
 

27

Figure 32: PS 19 and PS 124 regression results for 2007-2009. The computed PS 19: PS 124 relationship is: PS 19 

concentration = 0.574804 + 0.93408 * PS 124 concentration 

Figure 33: Bootstrapping results from the 1000 simulations for the PS 19 for 2007-2009. “dv” is the resulting design 

value after application of residuals from linear regression. “ct” is the number of simulations that yielded that specific 

design value. 

Figure 34: Monitor correlations with PS 19 and candidate monitors for 2008-2010. 

npairsQ1 npairsQ2 npairsQ3 npairsQ4 corr

New York 360610128 360610128 27 inc-a 27 inc-a 119 133 115 108 1

New York 360610128 360610056 27 inc-a 33 inc-a 80 70 54 50 0.970136

New York 360610128 360050133 27 inc-a 27 A 60 73 56 57 0.965357

New York 360610128 360610134 27 inc-a 29 A 53 100 83 78 0.960733

New York 360610128 360810124 27 inc-a 28 A 105 132 102 103 0.946096

New York 360610128 360610079 27 inc-a 29 A 118 133 114 105 0.935764

New York 360610128 360470122 27 inc-a 27 A 109 130 101 99 0.93342

New York 360610128 360050080 27 inc-a 29 A 116 124 106 101 0.927679

New York 360610128 360850055 27 inc-a 26 A 115 122 109 106 0.92271

New York 360610128 340171003 27 inc-a 29 A 118 129 110 101 0.919879

Area Site A Site B DV Site 

A

DV 

status 

Site A

DV Site 

B

DV 

status 

Site B

20-quarter look (2006-Q1 - 2010-Q4)

v_a

0

10

20

30

40

50

v_b

0 10 20 30 40 50
28

Figure 35: Data capture for PS 19 and candidate monitors for 2008-2010. 

Figure 36: PS 19 and Pfizer Lab regression results for 2008-2010. The computed PS 19: Pfizer Lab relationship is: PS 

19 concentration = 2.38803 + 0.93051 * Pfizer Lab 

Figure 37: Bootstrapping results from the 1000 simulations for the PS 19 for 2008-2010. “dv” is the resulting design 

value after application of residuals from linear regression. “ct” is the number of simulations that yielded that specific 

design value. 

2008 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2009 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2010 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4

360610128 77% 50% 30% 97% 93% 87% 100% 93% 94% 100%

360610056 100% 93%

360050133 87% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100%

360610134 61% 93% 97% 93% 100% 97% 93% 100% 83% 97% 97% 100%

360810124 99% 98% 99% 96% 100% 99% 93% 88% 100% 100% 91% 93%

360610079 97% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 90%

360470122 81% 90% 94% 93% 93% 100% 77% 97% 93% 100% 84% 94%

360050080 94% 97% 97% 93% 100% 81% 93% 87% 100% 87% 91% 95%

360850055 100% 70% 100% 97% 100% 100% 93% 97% 100% 100% 94% 97%

340171003 95% 88% 83% 95% 91% 89% 100% 89% 96% 99% 100% 90%

Quarterly Data Capture, 2008-2010

Site B

v_a

0

10

20

30

40

50

v_b

0 10 20 30 40 50
 

29

VI. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUMBITTED BY THE STATE 

The States of Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York submitted letters and packages to their respective 

EPA Regional Administrator regarding the determination of attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NY-NJ-CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. Each of the packages contained 24-hour PM2.5 design values, analysis on the 

decline of PM2.5 concentrations, and details regarding PM2.5 control measures. All the information 

provided by the States support EPA’s determination of attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area. The letters and packages submitted by the States can be 

found in the docket for this rulemaking. 

VII. CONCLUSION 

 EPA is proposing to determine that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area for the 2006 24-

hour PM2.5 NAAQS has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and continues to attain the standard 

based on data through 2011. 

 EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for PM2.5, consistent with the 

requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System database for the 

NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area. The 3-year averages of the 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations 

continue to be below the NAAQS of 35.0 ug/m3

. 

 EPA has concluded that 5 monitoring sites in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area that 

did not have complete and attaining design values would have attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

if they had complete data. The statistical procedure and bootstrapping test used by EPA demonstrated 

that incomplete monitors would have had attaining design values if they had operating completely for 

the 3 year period(s) of 2007-2009 and/or 2008-2010. 

 As provided in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), if EPA finalizes this determination, it would suspend the 

requirements for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area to submit attainment demonstrations, 

reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, and contingency measures 

related to attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS so long as the area continues to attain the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Appendix A 

24-hour design values for NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 FRM monitors 
County AQS Site Number 24-hour Design Values 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 200

Bronx 360050080 40 NA 40 NA 40 NA 39 NA 38 NA 36 NA 33 A 29 Bronx 360050083 36 NA 35 A 35 A 34 A 35 A 34 inc-a 33 inc-a Bronx 360050110 40 NA 38 NA 37 NA 36 NA 36 NA 34 A 32 A 29 Bronx 360050133 30 inc-a 29 inc-a 27 Kings 360470052 32 inc-a 29 inc-a 26 inc-a Kings 360470076 33 inc-a 33 inc-a 33 inc-a Kings 360470122 37 NA 38 NA 38 NA 37 NA 36 NA 34 A 30 A 27 Nassau 360590008 34 A 34 A 35 A 33 A 32 inc-a 30 inc-a 28 inc-a 25 Nassau 360590012 30 inc-a 29 inc-a 26 inc-a Nassau 360590013 31 inc-a 30 inc-a 26 inc-a New York 360610010 44 inc-na New York 360610056 39 NA 39 NA 39 NA 41 NA 39 NA 37 NA 35 inc-a 33 New York 360610062 42 NA 41 NA 42 NA 38 NA 37 NA 35 inc-a 35 inc-a New York 360610079 39 NA 40 NA 40 NA 37 NA 36 NA 35 A 32 A 29 New York 360610128 42 NA 42 NA 42 NA 38 NA 38 NA 34 inc-a 31 inc-a 27 New York 360610134 37 inc-na 34 inc-a 33 inc-a 29 Orange 360710002 30 A 30 A 29 A 28 A 29 A 28 A 26 A 24 Queens 360810094 35 inc-a 34 inc-a Queens 360810096 35 inc-a 34 inc-a 33 inc-a Queens 360810124 38 NA 37 NA 36 NA 34 inc-a 33 inc-a 32 A 30 A 28 Richmond 360850055 39 NA 39 NA 37 NA 34 A 34 A 33 inc-a 29 A 26 Richmond 360850067 31 A 31 A 33 A 33 A 31 A 30 A 27 A 24 Suffolk 361030001 36 NA 35 A 35 A 33 inc-a 34 inc-a Suffolk 361030002 32 inc-a 30 inc-a 29 A 26 A 25 Westchester 361191002 34 A 34 A 34 A 34 A 33 A 32 A 29 A 28 

Figure A-1: 24-hour PM2.5 design values for New York monitors in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area. “A” indicates att

nonattainment, “inc-a” indicates incomplete and attaining, and “inc-na” indicates incomplete and nonattainment. Rockland Cair monitor. 
32

County AQS Site Number 24-hour Design Values 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 

Bergen 340030003 36 NA 35 A 37 NA 37 NA 38 NA 35 A 31 A Bergen 340030007 31 inc-a 32 inc-a 32 inc-a Bergen 340030008 32 inc-a 33 inc-a 33 inc-a Bergen 340030009 31 inc-a 33 inc-a 33 inc-a 

Essex 340130003 25 inc-a Essex 340130015 37 NA 38 NA 38 NA 38 NA 38 NA 35 inc-a 32 inc-a Essex 340130016 36 NA 37 inc-na 35 inc-a 

Hudson 340171003 40 NA 40 NA 41 NA 39 NA 38 NA 36 NA 32 A Hudson 340172002 39 inc-na 38 inc-na 44 inc-na 43 

incna 41 NA 38 NA 33 inc-a 

Mercer 340210008 37 NA 37 NA 36 NA 34 A 34 A 33 A 29 A Mercer 340218001 33 inc-a 32 A 32 inc-a 30 inc-a 30 inc-a 28 inc-a 26 inc-a 

Middlesex 340230006 36 NA 36 NA 38 NA 34 A 32 A 31 A 27 A 

Morris 340270004 38 NA 35 A 34 A 31 A 32 A 29 A 26 A Morris 340273001 34 inc-a 33 A 33 A 31 A 31 A 28 A 26 A 

Passaic 340310005 37 NA 36 NA 37 NA 35 A 37 NA 33 A 30 A 

Union 340390004 41 NA 41 NA 41 NA 41 NA 39 NA 36 NA 32 inc-a Union 340390006 35 inc-a 35 A 38 NA 37 NA 38 NA 35 A 31 A Union 340392003 35 inc-a 36 NA 37 NA 37 NA 36 NA 34 inc-a 30 inc-a 

Figure A-2: 24-hour PM2.5 design values for New Jersey monitors in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area. “A” indicates at

indicates nonattainment, “inc-a” indicates incomplete and attaining, and “inc-na” indicates incomplete and nonattainment. Mo

counties do not have air monitors. 
33

County AQS Site Number 24-hour Design Values 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 20

Fairfield 090010010 38 NA 36 NA 37 NA 36 NA 35 A 33 A 31 A 28 Fairfield 090010113 36 NA 37 inc-na 40 inc-na Fairfield 090011123 35 A 33 A 33 A 32 A 33 A 31 A 29 A 27 Fairfield 090012124 38 NA 36 NA 37 inc-na 32 inc-a Fairfield 090013005 38 NA 36 NA 36 NA 33 inc-a 34 A 31 A 29 A 26 Fairfield 090019003 37 NA 36 NA 37 NA 32 A 32 A 30 A 29 A 27 

New Haven 090090018 41 X 39 X 40 X 39 X 44 X New Haven 090090026 46 inc-na 39 inc-na 38 NA 35 A 34 A 32 A 30 A 27 New Haven 090090027 33 inc-a 36 inc-na 36 NA 35 A 33 A 31 A 29 New Haven 090091123 40 NA 39 NA 40 NA 38 NA 36 NA 34 A 31 A 29 New Haven 090092008 44 inc-na 38 inc-na 36 NA 33 A 32 A 29 A 27 A 24 New Haven 090092123 35 A 34 A 35 A 34 A 35 A 32 A 30 A 27 New Haven 090098003 47 inc-na 39 inc-na 39 inc-na 31 inc-a New Haven 090099005 36 NA 37 inc-na 44 inc-na 

Figure A-3: 24-hour PM2.5 design values for New Jersey monitors in the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area. “A” indicates at

indicates nonattainment, “inc-a” indicates incomplete and attaining, “inc-na” indicates incomplete and nonattainment, and “X” design value has not been compared to the NAAQS because the site is microscale and represents a unique area. 
Appendix B 

Design value trends 
20

2530354045

01‐03 DV 02‐04 DV 03‐05 DV 04‐06 DV 05‐07 DV 06‐08 DV 07‐09 DV 08‐10 DV

μg/m3

3 year design value

24‐hour PM2.5Design Values for the New York counties in the NY‐NJ‐CT

PM2.5nonattainment area with monitors

2OQSW

Figure B-1: 24-hour PM2.5 design values for New York monitors in the 2006 24-hour NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area. 
20

2530354045

01‐03 DV 02‐04 DV 03‐05 DV 04‐06 DV 05‐07 DV 06‐08 DV 07‐09 DV 08‐10 DV

μg/m3

3 year design value

24‐hour PM2.5 Design Values for the New Jersey counties in the NY‐NJ‐

CT PM2.5 nonattainment area with monitors

24‐hourstBergenEssexHudsonMercerMiddlesexMorrisPassaicUnion

Figure B-2: 24-hour PM2.5 design values for New Jersey monitors in the 2006 24-hour NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area 

36
37

202530354045

01‐03 DV 02‐04 DV 03‐05 DV 04‐06 DV 05‐07 DV 06‐08 DV 07‐09 DV 08‐10 DV

μg/m3

3 year design value

24‐hour PM2.5 Design Values for the Connecticut counties in the NY‐NJ‐

CT PM2.5 nonattainment area with monitors

24‐houFairfielNew Ha

Figure B-3: 24-hour PM2.5 design values for Connecticut monitors in the 2006 24-hour NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area 
Appendix C 

Network Review Letters 

 
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

 
48
49

 
50
51
52
53

 
54

 
55

 
56

 
57

 
58

 
59

 
60

 
61

 
62

 
63

 
64

 
65

 
66

 
67

 
68

 
69