38648 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0889; FRL–9827–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

New Jersey; Redesignation of Areas 

for Air Quality Planning Purposes and 

Approval of the Associated 

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a redesignation request and State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of New Jersey. 

The New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is 

requesting that EPA redesignate the 

New Jersey portion of the New YorkN.New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 

nonattainment area, and the New Jersey 

portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area, from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour Fine 

Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). In 

conjunction with its redesignation 

request, New Jersey submitted a SIP 

revision containing a maintenance plan 

for the areas that provides for continued 

maintenance of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

maintenance plan includes the 2007 

attainment year emissions inventory 

that EPA is proposing to approve in this 

rulemaking in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

EPA is also proposing to approve a 

supplement to the 2007 attainment year 

emission inventory previously 

submitted by the State as part of the SIP 

revision. EPA is proposing that the 

inventories for ammonia (NH3) and 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) that 

were submitted as part of the 

supplement, in conjunction with the 

inventories for nitrogen oxides (NOX), 

direct PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

that were previously submitted, meet 

the comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2009 and 2025 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for PM2.5 and 

NOX. 

EPA previously determined that the 

New Jersey portions of the New YorkN.New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 

and Philadelphia-Wilmington, PAnonattainment areas have attained the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve the request for 

redesignation for the 1997 annual and 

24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

maintenance plan, and the 2007 

attainment year inventory based on 

EPA’s determination that the areas have 

met the redesignation requirements set 

forth in the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 29, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R02–OAR–2012–0889 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Ruvo.Richard@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 212–637–3901. 

4. Mail: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air 

Planning Section, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Richard Ruvo, Chief, 

Air Planning Section, Air Programs 

Branch, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 

25th Floor, New York, New York 

10007–1866. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official business hours is 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2012– 

0889. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air 

Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the contact listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Raymond Forde 

(forde.raymond@epa.gov) concerning 

emission inventories and Kenneth 

Fradkin (fradkin.kenneth@epa.gov) 

concerning other portions of the SIP 

revision, Air Programs Branch, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4249. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to 

take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

A. General 

B. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR or 

the Transport Rule) 

III. What are the criteria for redesignation? 

IV. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

V. What is the effect of the January 4, 2013 

D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4? 

A. Background 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38649 

B. Proposal on This issue 

VI. What is EPA’s analysis of New Jersey’s 

redesignation request? 

A. Attainment 

B. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA 

C. Fully Approved SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

D. The Air Quality Improvement Must Be 

Permanent and Enforceable 

E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA 

VII. What is EPA’s analysis of New Jersey’s 

proposed NOX and PM2.5 motor vehicle 

emission budgets? 

VIII. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the proposed NOX and 

PM2.5 MVEBs for 2009 and 2025 for 

Northern and Southern New Jersey? 

IX. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What are the actions EPA is 

proposing to take? 

On December 26, 2012, the State of 

New Jersey, through NJDEP, submitted a 

request to redesignate the New Jersey 

portion of the New York-N.New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment 

area (‘‘NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area’’), 

and the New Jersey portion of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE 

nonattainment area (‘‘PA-NJ-DE 

nonattainment area’’) from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Concurrently, NJDEP 

submitted a maintenance plan for the 

areas as a SIP revision to ensure 

continued attainment. In a 

supplemental submission to EPA on 

May 3, 2013, the State of New Jersey 

submitted NH3 and VOC emissions 

inventories to supplement the emissions 

inventories that had been submitted on 

December 26, 2012. 

EPA is proposing to take several 

actions pursuant to the redesignation of 

the New Jersey portion of the NY-NJ-CT 

and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas 

for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to 

find that the New Jersey portion of the 

NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area (hereafter 

referred to as the Northern New Jersey 

PM2.5 ‘‘or NNJ’’ nonattainment area) and 

the New Jersey portion of the PA-NJ-DE 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the Southern New Jersey PM2.5 ‘‘or 

SNJ’’ nonattainment area) meet the 

requirements for redesignation under 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus 

proposing to approve New Jersey’s 

request to change the legal definition of 

the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas 

from nonattainment to attainment. This 

action does not impact the New York 

and Connecticut portions of the NY-NJCT nonattainment area, or the 

Pennsylvania and Delaware portions of 

the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area. EPA 

may take separate actions on those 

portions of the nonattainment areas in a 

separate rulemaking. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan for the NNJ and SNJ 

nonattainment areas as a revision to the 

New Jersey SIP. Such approval is one of 

the CAA criteria for redesignation of an 

area to attainment. The maintenance 

plan is designed to ensure continued 

attainment in the NNJ and SNJ 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for 

10 years after redesignation. The 

maintenance plan includes the 2007 

attainment year, 2017 interim year, and 

2025 end year projection emission 

inventories. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the 2009 and 2025 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for PM2.5 and 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX). 

In this proposed redesignation, EPA 

takes into account the D.C. Circuit 

January 4, 2013 decision remanding to 

EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, 

April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008), Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 

2013). 

EPA’s analysis for these proposed 

actions is discussed in sections V, VI 

and VII of today’s proposed rulemaking 

action. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

A. General 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were promulgated on July 18, 

1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated 

an annual standard at a level of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

based on a three-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. In the same 

rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour 

standard of 65 mg/m3, based on a threeyear average of the 98th percentile of 24- 

hour concentrations. On October 17, 

2006, at 71 FR 61144, EPA retained the 

annual average standard at 15 mg/m3 but 

revised the 24-hour standard to 35 mg/ 

m3, based again on the three-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. 

On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, and 

supplemented on April 14, 2005, at 70 

FR 19844, EPA designated the NY-NJCT and PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas 

as nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 air 

quality standards. In that action, EPA 

defined the NNJ nonattainment area to 

include Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, 

Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, 

Somerset, and Union Counties; and 

defined the SNJ nonattainment area to 

include Burlington, Camden, and 

Gloucester Counties. On November 13, 

2009, at 74 FR 58688, EPA promulgated 

designations for the 24-hour standard 

set in 2006, designating the NY-NJ-CT 

nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE 

nonattainment area as nonattainment for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

nonattainment area boundaries for the 

NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS were identical 

to the boundaries for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, containing the same counties 

as listed above. EPA did not promulgate 

designations for the annual average 

NAAQS promulgated in 2006 since that 

NAAQS was essentially identical to the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Today’s 

action addresses the designation for the 

annual NAAQS promulgated in 1997, 

and the 24-hour NAAQS promulgated in 

2006, for the NNJ and the SNJ 

nonattainment areas. 

In the final rulemaking action dated 

November 15, 2010 (75 FR 69589), EPA 

determined, pursuant to CAA section 

179(c), that the entire NY-NJ-CT 

nonattainment area had attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon 

quality assured, quality controlled, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data for 

the period of 2007–2009. On May 16, 

2012 (77 FR 28782), EPA determined 

that the entire PA-NJ-DE nonattainment 

area was attaining the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon quality 

assured, quality controlled, and certified 

ambient air monitoring data for the 

2007–2009 and 2008–2010 monitoring 

periods. 

EPA finalized, on December 31, 2012 

(77 FR 76867), the determination that 

the entire NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area 

had attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, based upon quality assured, 

quality controlled, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data that showed that the 

area had monitored attainment of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

2007–2009 and 2008–2010 monitoring 

periods. On January 7, 2013 (78 FR 882), 

EPA finalized the determination that the 

PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area had 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, based upon quality assured, 

quality controlled, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data that showed that the 

areas had monitored attainment of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

2008–2010 and 2009–2011 monitoring 

periods. 

The 3-year ambient air quality data for 

the last three year monitoring periods 

for the 2007–2009, 2008–2010, and 

2009–2011 indicated no violations for 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38650 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1The document is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf. 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Preliminary design values for 

2010–2012 also indicate no violations 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. As a result of the 

monitoring data continuing to show 

attainment, on December 26, 2012 New 

Jersey requested redesignation of the 

NNJ and the SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas to attainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, nonattainment areas 

may be redesignated to attainment if 

sufficient, complete, quality-assured 

data is available for the Administrator to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard and the area meets the other 

CAA redesignation requirements under 

107(d)(3)(E). 

B. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR 

or the Transport Rule) 

On May 12, 2005, EPA published 

CAIR, which requires significant 

reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOX

from electric generating units (EGUs) to 

limit the interstate transport of these 

pollutants and the ozone and PM2.5 they 

form in the atmosphere. See 70 FR 

25162. The D.C. Circuit initially vacated 

CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 

896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately 

remanded the rule to EPA without 

vacatur to preserve the environmental 

benefits provided by CAIR, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). In response to the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision, EPA issued the 

Transport Rule, also known as CSAPR, 

to address interstate transport of NOX

and SO2 in the eastern United States. 

See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In 

that decision, it also ordered EPA to 

continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending 

the promulgation of a valid 

replacement.’’ EME Homer City, 696 

F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all 

petitions for rehearing on January 24, 

2013. EPA and other parties have filed 

petitions for certiorari to the U.S. 

Supreme Court, but those petitions have 

not been acted on to date. Nonetheless, 

EPA intends to continue to act in 

accordance with the EME Homer City 

opinion. 

As explained below, EPA proposes 

that New Jersey has demonstrated that 

the attainment of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS will be 

maintained with or without the 

implementation of CAIR or CSAPR. 

New Jersey’s maintenance plan does not 

include the emission reductions from 

either program in the permanent and 

enforceable Federal and State control 

measures needed for attainment and 

continued maintenance. In addition, air 

quality modeling analysis conducted 

during the CSAPR rulemaking process 

also demonstrated that the counties in 

the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE 

nonattainment areas will have PM2.5

levels below the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in both 2012 and 

2014 without taking into account 

emissions reductions from CAIR or 

CSAPR. See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling 

Final Rule Technical Support 

Document’’ 1, App. B, B–18, B–19. This 

modeling is also available in the docket 

for this proposed redesignation. 

III. What are the criteria for 

redesignation? 

Under the CAA, designations can be 

revised if sufficient data is available to 

warrant such revisions. Section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA identifies five 

specific requirements that an area must 

meet in order to be redesignated from 

nonattainment to attainment. 

1. The area must have attained the 

applicable NAAQS. 

2. The area must meet all applicable 

requirements under section 110 and part 

D of the CAA. 

3. The area must have a fully 

approved SIP under section 110 (k) of 

the CAA. 

4. The air quality improvement must 

be permanent and enforceable. 

5. The area must have a fully 

approved maintenance plan pursuant to 

section 175A of the CAA. 

EPA has provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990 (April 16, 

1992, 57 FR 13498, and supplemented 

on April 28, 1992, 57 FR 18070) and has 

provided further guidance on processing 

redesignation requests in the following 

documents: 

1. ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Calcagni Memorandum’’); 

2. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, October 28, 1992; 

3. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part 

D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; 

and 

4. ‘‘Implementation Guidance for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, March 2, 2012. 

IV. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

EPA’s approval of the redesignation 

request, if made final, would change the 

official designation of the NNJ and the 

SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, found 

at 40 CFR part 81. It would incorporate 

into the New Jersey SIP a maintenance 

plan ensuring continued attainment of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS until 2025. The 

maintenance plan includes, among 

other elements, contingency measures to 

remedy any future violations, should 

they occur, of the 1997 annual PM2.5

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Approval of the 2007 base year 

emissions inventory, which is part of 

the maintenance plan, will satisfy the 

inventory requirements under section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. 

V. What is the effect of the January 4, 

2013 D.C. Circuit decision regarding 

PM2.5 implementation under subpart 4? 

A. Background 

As discussed in section I, on January 

4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that 

EPA erred in implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of part D of Title I of the CAA, rather 

than the particulate-matter-specific 

provisions of subpart 4 of part D of Title 

I. Although the Court’s ruling did not 

directly address the 2006 PM2.5

standard, EPA is taking into account the 

Court’s position on subpart 4 and the 

1997 PM2.5 standard in evaluating 

redesignations for the 2006 standard. 

B. Proposal on This Issue 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision 

does not prevent EPA from 

redesignating the NNJ and SNJ 

nonattainment areas to attainment for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Even 

in light of the Court’s decision, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38651 

2Applicable requirements of the CAA that come 

due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not required as 

a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of 

the CAA. 

redesignation for this area is appropriate 

under the CAA and EPA’s longstanding 

interpretations of the CAA’s provisions 

regarding redesignation. EPA first 

explains its longstanding interpretation 

that requirements that are imposed, or 

that become due, after a complete 

redesignation request is submitted for 

an area that is attaining the standard, are 

not applicable for purposes of 

evaluating a redesignation request. 

Second, EPA then shows that, even if 

EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements 

to the New Jersey redesignation request 

and disregards the provisions of its 1997 

PM2.5 implementation rule recently 

remanded by the Court, the State’s 

request for redesignation of this area 

still qualifies for approval. EPA’s 

discussion takes into account the effect 

of the Court’s ruling on the area’s 

maintenance plan, which EPA views as 

approvable when subpart 4 

requirements are considered. 

1. Applicable Requirements for 

Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Request 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the Court’s 

January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA’s 

reasons for implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS solely in accordance with the 

provisions of subpart 1, and remanded 

that matter to EPA, so that it could 

address implementation of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of part D 

of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For 

the purposes of evaluating New Jersey’s 

redesignation request for the areas, to 

the extent that implementation under 

subpart 4 would impose additional 

requirements for areas designated 

nonattainment, EPA believes that those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not 

required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to the New 

Jersey redesignation. Under its 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA, 

EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) 

to mean, as a threshold matter, that the 

part D provisions which are 

‘‘applicable’’ and which must be 

approved in order for EPA to 

redesignate an area include only those 

which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See Calcagni memorandum 

referenced in section III. See also SIP 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–25427, May 12, 2003); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

of attainment’’).2 In this case, at the time 

that New Jersey submitted its 

redesignation request, requirements 

under subpart 4 were not due, and 

indeed, were not yet known to apply. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the NNJ and SNJ 

redesignation, the subpart 4 

requirements were not due at the time 

the State submitted the redesignation 

request is in keeping with the EPA’s 

interpretation of subpart 2 requirements 

for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated 

subsequent to the D.C. Circuit’s decision 

in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. 

v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

In South Coast, the Court found that 

EPA was not permitted to implement 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely 

under subpart 1, and held that EPA was 

required under the statute to implement 

the standard under the ozone-specific 

requirements of subpart 2 as well. 

Subsequent to the South Coast decision, 

in evaluating and acting upon 

redesignation requests for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard that were 

submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements’’, for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, 

EPA therefore did not consider subpart 

2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of evaluating whether the 

area should be redesignated under 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

provisions of CAA section 107(d)(3). 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an 

area to be redesignated, a state must 

meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to 

the area under section 110 and part D’’. 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the 

EPA must have fully approved the 

‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking 

redesignation. These two sections read 

together support EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements 

that came due prior to submission of a 

complete redesignation request. First, 

holding states to an ongoing obligation 

to adopt new CAA requirements that 

arose after the state submitted its 

redesignation request, in order to be 

redesignated, would make it 

problematic or impossible for EPA to act 

on redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the Act 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of this redesignation, 

the timing and nature of the Court’s 

January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. 

EPA compound the consequences of 

imposing requirements that come due 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38652 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and 

distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit decision that 

addressed retroactivity in a quite different context, 

where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give 

its regulations retroactive effect. National 

Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 

145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d 

958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571 

(2011). 

4PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

5 i.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

milestone requirements, contingency measures. 

after the redesignation request is 

submitted. The State submitted its 

redesignation request on December 26, 

2012, but the Court did not issue its 

decision remanding EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule concerning the 

applicability of the provisions of 

subpart 4 until January 2013. 

To require the State’s fully-completed 

and pending redesignation request to 

comply now with requirements of 

subpart 4 that the Court announced only 

in January, 2013, would be to give 

retroactive effect to such requirements 

when the State had no notice that it was 

required to meet them. The D.C. Circuit 

recognized the inequity of this type of 

retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. 

Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),3

where it upheld the District Court’s 

ruling refusing to make retroactive 

EPA’s determination that the St. Louis 

area did not meet its attainment 

deadline. In that case, petitioners urged 

the Court to make EPA’s nonattainment 

determination effective as of the date 

that the statute required, rather than the 

later date on which EPA actually made 

the determination. The Court rejected 

this view, stating that applying it 

‘‘would likely impose large costs on 

States, which would face fines and suits 

for not implementing air pollution 

prevention plans . . . even though they 

were not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 

68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable 

to penalize the State of New Jersey by 

rejecting its redesignation request for an 

area that is already attaining the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 standards and that met 

all applicable requirements known to be 

in effect at the time of the request. For 

EPA now to reject the redesignation 

request solely because the state did not 

expressly address subpart 4 

requirements of which it had no notice, 

would inflict the same unfairness 

condemned by the Court in Sierra Club 

v. Whitman. 

2. Subpart 4 Requirements and New 

Jersey Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision 

requires that, in the context of pending 

redesignations, subpart 4 requirements 

were due and in effect at the time the 

State submitted its redesignation 

request, EPA proposes to determine that 

the NNJ and SNJ areas still qualify for 

redesignation to attainment. As 

explained below, EPA believes that the 

redesignation request for the NNJ and 

SNJ areas, though not expressed in 

terms of subpart 4 requirements, 

substantively meets the requirements of 

that subpart for purposes of 

redesignating the area to attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the NNJ and SNJ areas, EPA notes that 

subpart 4 incorporates components of 

subpart 1 of part D, which contains 

general air quality planning 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. See section 172(c). 

Subpart 4 itself contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for PM10 4 nonattainment areas, and 

under the Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same 

statutory requirements also apply for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 

(the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General 

Preamble, EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM–10 

requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 

1992). The subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), reasonable further progress 

(RFP), emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify any additional 

requirements which would apply under 

subpart 4, we are considering the NNJ 

and SNJ areas to be ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5

nonattainment areas. Under section 188 

of the CAA, all areas designated 

nonattainment areas under subpart 4 

would initially be classified by 

operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas, and would remain 

moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the area as a 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impact of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 

4 apply to moderate nonattainment 

areas and include the following: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); 

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM 

(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) 

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), 

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself 

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1. In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment new source review 

program is not considered an applicable 

requirement for redesignation, provided 

the area can maintain the standard with 

a prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) program after redesignation. A 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,5 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is 

attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed 

as having satisfied the attainment 

planning requirements for these 

subparts. For redesignations, EPA has 

for many years interpreted attainmentlinked requirements as not applicable 

for areas attaining the standard. In the 

General Preamble, EPA stated that: 

The requirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that the 

area has already attained. Showing that the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38653 

State will make RFP towards attainment will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that point. 

‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation 

of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990’’; (57 FR 13498, 

13564, April 16, 1992). 

The General Preamble also explained 

that 

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are 

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans . . . provides specific requirements for 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. 

Id. 

EPA similarly stated in its 1992 

Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’ 

It is evident that even if we were to 

consider the Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 

attainment-related requirements specific 

to subpart 4 should be imposed 

retroactively and thus are now past due, 

those requirements do not apply to an 

area that is attaining the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards, for the purpose of 

evaluating a pending request to 

redesignate the area to attainment. EPA 

has consistently enunciated this 

interpretation of applicable 

requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) 

since the General Preamble was 

published more than twenty years ago. 

Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligations to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the standard. 

EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ 

rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also 

governed by the requirements of subpart 

4, explain EPA’s reasoning. They 

describe the effects of a determination of 

attainment on the attainment-related SIP 

planning requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, 

(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); 

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–40955, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 

63641, 63643–63647 October 30, 2006). 

In short, EPA in this context has also 

long concluded that to require states to 

meet superfluous SIP planning 

requirements is not necessary and not 

required by the CAA, so long as those 

areas continue to attain the relevant 

NAAQS. 

Elsewhere in this action, EPA 

proposes to determine that the NNJ and 

SNJ areas continue to attain the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 standards. Under its 

longstanding interpretation, EPA is 

proposing to determine here that the 

areas meet the attainment-related plan 

requirements of subparts 1 and 4. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude 

that the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration under 

189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination 

under section 172(c)(1) and section 

189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under 

189(c)(1), and contingency measure 

requirements under section 172(c)(9) are 

satisfied for purposes of evaluating the 

redesignation request. 

3. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The DC Circuit in NRDC v. EPA 

remanded to EPA the two rules at issue 

in the case with instructions to EPA to 

re-promulgate them consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this 

section addresses the Court’s opinion 

with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While 

past implementation of subpart 4 for 

PM10 has allowed for control of PM10

precursors such as NOX from major 

stationary, mobile, and area sources in 

order to attain the standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, CAA 

section 189(e) specifically provides that 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation 

rule, remanded by the DC Circuit, 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning certain PM2.5 precursors 

applicable to attainment plans and 

control measures related to those plans. 

Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA 

provided, among other things, that a 

state was ‘‘not required to address VOC 

[and NH3] as . . . PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of 

VOC [and NH3] emissions in the State 

for control measures.’’ EPA intended 

these to be rebuttable presumptions. 

EPA established these presumptions at 

the time because of uncertainties 

regarding the emission inventories for 

these pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and NH3 in specific areas where that 

was necessary. 

The Court in its January 4, 2013 

decision made reference to both section 

189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated 

that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, we 

need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and NH3 are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10. 

Elsewhere in the Court’s opinion, 

however, the Court observed: 

NH3 is a precursor to fine particulate 

matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5

and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. 

Id. at 21, n.7. 

For a number of reasons, EPA believes 

that its proposed redesignation of the 

NNJ and SNJ areas is consistent with the 

Court’s decision on this aspect of 

subpart 4. First, while the Court, citing 

section 189(e), stated that ‘‘for a PM10

area governed by subpart 4, a precursor 

is ‘presumptively regulated,’ ’’ the Court 

expressly declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions 

regarding NH3 and VOC as precursors. 

The Court had no occasion to reach 

whether and how it was substantively 

necessary to regulate any specific 

precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the implementation 

rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding 

NH3 and VOC as PM2.5 precursors (and 

any similar provisions reflected in 

guidance for the 2006 PM2.5 standard), 

the regulatory consequence would be to 

consider the need for regulation of all 

precursors from any sources in the area 

to demonstrate attainment and to apply 

the section 189(e) provisions to major 

stationary sources of precursors. In the 

case of the NNJ and SNJ areas EPA 

believes that doing so is consistent with 

proposing redesignation of the areas for 

the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5

standards. The NNJ and SNJ areas have 

attained the standard without any 

specific additional controls of VOC and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38654 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

6Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for 

purposes of demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to 

evaluate all economically and technologically 

feasible control measures for direct PM emissions 

and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures 

that are deemed reasonably available. 

7The NNJ and SNJ areas have reduced VOC 

emissions through the implementation of various 

control programs including VOC Reasonably 

Available Control Technology regulations and 

various on-road and non-road motor vehicle control 

programs. 

8See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin 

Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area 

Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual 

PM–10 Standards,’’ 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) 

(approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose 

controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did 

not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia 

emissions). 9See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et 

al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 

NH3 emissions from any sources in the 

area. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.6

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of NH3 and VOC. Thus we 

must address here whether additional 

controls of NH3 and VOC from major 

stationary sources are required under 

section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to 

redesignate the area for the 1997 PM2.5

and 2006 PM2.5 standards. As explained 

below, we do not believe that any 

additional controls of NH3 and VOC are 

required in the context of this 

redesignation. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542. 

With regard to precursor regulation 

under section 189(e), the General 

Preamble explicitly stated that control 

of VOCs under other Act requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

section 189(e). 57 FR 13542. EPA in this 

proposal proposes to determine that the 

SIP has met the provisions of section 

189(e) with respect to NH3 and VOCs as 

precursors. This proposed 

determination is based on our findings 

that (1) the NNJ and SNJ areas contain 

no major stationary sources of NH3, and 

(2) existing major stationary sources of 

VOC are adequately controlled under 

other provisions of the CAA regulating 

the ozone NAAQS.7 In the alternative, 

EPA proposes to determine that, under 

the express exception provisions of 

section 189(e), and in the context of the 

redesignation of the area, which is 

attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards, at present NH3 and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards in the NNJ and SNJ 

areas. See 57 FR 13539–42. 

EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions in 40 

CFR 51.1002 were not directed at 

evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the 

context of redesignation, but at SIP 

plans and control measures required to 

bring a nonattainment area into 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

By contrast, redesignation to attainment 

primarily requires the area to have 

already attained due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and to 

demonstrate that controls in place can 

continue to maintain the standard. 

Thus, even if we regard the Court’s 

January 4, 2013 decision as calling for 

‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of NH3 and 

VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment 

planning provisions of subpart 4, those 

provisions in and of themselves do not 

require additional controls of these 

precursors for an area that already 

qualifies for redesignation. Nor does 

EPA believe that requiring New Jersey to 

address precursors differently than they 

have already would result in a 

substantively different outcome. 

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its 

consideration here of precursor 

requirements under subpart 4 is in the 

context of a redesignation to attainment, 

EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 

4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that are necessary for 

purposes of attainment in the area in 

question, i.e., states may determine that 

only certain precursors need be 

regulated for attainment and control 

purposes.8 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.9 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the NNJ and SNJ 

areas have already attained the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with its current 

approach to regulation of PM2.5

precursors, EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to conclude in the context of 

this redesignation that there is no need 

to revisit the attainment control strategy 

with respect to the treatment of 

precursors. Even if the Court’s decision 

is construed to impose an obligation, in 

evaluating this redesignation request, to 

consider additional precursors under 

subpart 4, it would not affect EPA’s 

approval here of New Jersey’s request 

for redesignation of the NNJ and SNJ 

areas. In the context of a redesignation, 

the areas have shown that they have 

attained the standards. Moreover, the 

State has shown and EPA is proposing 

to determine that attainment in these 

areas are due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions on all 

precursors necessary to provide for 

continued attainment. It follows 

logically that no further control of 

additional precursors is necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA does not view the 

January 4, 2013 decision of the Court as 

precluding redesignation of the NNJ and 

SNJ areas to attainment for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. 

In sum, even if New Jersey were 

required to address precursors for the 

NNJ and SNJ areas under subpart 4 

rather than under subpart 1, as 

interpreted in EPA’s remanded PM2.5

implementation rule, EPA would still 

conclude that the area had met all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v). 

VI. What is EPA’s analysis of New 

Jersey’s redesignation request? 

In an effort to comply with the CAA 

and to ensure continued attainment of 

the NAAQS, on December 26, 2012, the 

State of New Jersey submitted a 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the NNJ and SNJ 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

The following is a description of how 

the state has fulfilled each of the CAA 

redesignation requirements. 

A. Attainment 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has 

attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). In this action for 

this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the NY-NJ-CT and the 

PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas are 

continuing to attain the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

An area may be considered to be 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

if it meets the NAAQS as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR 50.7 and 

Appendix N of part 50, based on three 

complete, consecutive calendar years of 

quality-assured air quality monitoring 

data. To attain this standard, the threeyear average of annual means must be 

less than or equal to 15 mg/m3 at all 

relevant monitoring sites in the subject 

area. The relevant data must be 

collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38655 

10All data for 2012 has been quality-assured. 

recorded in the EPA Air Quality System 

(AQS). The monitors meet 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/moves, 

monitoring diligence, and nearby 

concentrations in determining whether 

to use such data. 

As noted in section IIA above, EPA 

has finalized determinations that the 

NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE nonattainment 

areas had attained the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has also reviewed 

more recent quality-assured data for 

both NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE 

nonattainment areas. The ambient air 

monitoring data submitted by New 

Jersey shows PM2.5 concentrations 

attaining the annual PM2.5 NAAQS for 

the 2009–2011 time period for both 

nonattainment areas. 

Table 1, below, shows the design 

value by county (i.e., 3-year average) of 

annual mean PM2.5 concentrations) for 

the 2009–2011 time period for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-NJ-CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area monitors. 

Table 2, below, shows the design value 

for the 2009–2011 time period for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the PANJ-DE nonattainment area monitors. 

Preliminary design values10 for the 

2010–2012 time period is also shown. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE NY-NJ-CT 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3) 

[The standard is 15.0 μg/m3] 

Nonattainment area counties Annual mean concentrations 

Preliminary 

annual mean 

concentration 

2011 3-year 

annual design 

value 

Preliminary 

2012 3-year 

annual design 

value 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009–2011 2010–2012 

NEW JERSEY: 

Bergen .............................................. 9.1 8.8 9.8 8.9 9.2 9.2 

Essex ................................................ INC 9.2 10.5 9.0 INC 9.5 

Hudson .............................................. 10.8 10.6 11.8 10.9 11.1 11.1 

Mercer ............................................... 9.3 9.5 10.3 8.8 9.7 9.5 

Middlesex .......................................... 8.1 7.4 8.3 * 8.3 7.9 * 8.0 

Monmouth ......................................... NM NM NM NM NM NM 

Morris ................................................ 8.1 8.5 8.7 7.9 8.5 8.4 

Passaic ............................................. 9.0 8.9 10.1 9.1 9.3 * 9.3 

Somerset ........................................... NM NM NM NM ........................ ........................

Union ................................................. 11.3 10.6 12.2 10.7 11.4 11.2 

NEW YORK: 

Bronx ................................................. 12.7 11.4 11.6 9.5 11.9 9.8 

Kings ................................................. 10.7 9.9 10.3 9.7 10.3 9.9 

Nassau .............................................. 9.0 8.7 8.9 (*) 8.9 (*) 

New York .......................................... 11.6 11.5 12.2 11.7 11.7 11.8 

Orange .............................................. 7.9 8.1 8.6 * 7.8 8.2 * 8.2 

Queens ............................................. 9.5 9.4 9.3 8.5 9.4 * 9.1 

Richmond .......................................... 9.8 9.7 10.1 9.4 9.8 9.6* 

Rockland ........................................... NM NM NM NM NM NM 

Suffolk ............................................... 8.1 8.4 8.8 7.9 8.4 8.4 

Westchester ...................................... 9.1 8.8 9.3 (*) 9.1 (*) 

CONNECTICUT: 

Fairfield ............................................. 9.4 8.8 10.0 9.3 9.4 9.4 

New Haven ....................................... 9.9 9.0 10.0 9.2 9.6 9.4 

INC—All counties listed as INC did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement for the relevant time period. 

NM—No monitor located in county. 

*—Missing 1 or more quarters. 

TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PA-NJ-DE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3) 

[The standard is 15.0 μg/m3] 

Nonattainment area counties Annual mean concentrations 

Preliminary 

annual mean 

concentration 

2011 3-year 

annual design 

value 

Preliminary 

2012 3-year 

annual design 

value 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009–2011 2010–2012 

NEW JERSEY: 

Camden ............................................ 9.5 10.3 10.1 9.0 9.7 9.5 

Gloucester ......................................... 9.3 10.0 9.4 9.4 9.3 * 9.3 

Burlington .......................................... NM NM NM NM NM NM 

DELAWARE: 

New Castle ....................................... 11.2 11.7 10.3 10.3 10.7 10.4 

PENNSYLVANIA: 

Bucks ................................................ 10.8 10.5 11.5 10.7 10.9 10.9 

Chester ............................................. 14.1 13.8 13.3 9.8 13.7 * 12.3 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38656 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

11All data for 2012 has been quality-assured. 

TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PA-NJ-DE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3)—Continued 

[The standard is 15.0 μg/m3] 

Nonattainment area counties Annual mean concentrations 

Preliminary 

annual mean 

concentration 

2011 3-year 

annual design 

value 

Preliminary 

2012 3-year 

annual design 

value 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009–2011 2010–2012 

Delaware ........................................... 12.4 13.5 12.9 * 12.8 12.9 * 13.1 

Montgomery ...................................... 10.4 9.5 10.3 9.7 10.1 9.8 

Philadelphia ...................................... 11.1 11.0 11.4 16.4 11.2 13.4 

NM—No monitor located in county. 

*—Missing 1 or more quarters. 

Air monitoring data indicates that the 

NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE 

nonattainment areas continue to meet 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

concludes that NY-NJ-CT and the PANJ-DE nonattainment areas are 

continuing to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA proposes 

that the statutory criterion for 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS (40 CFR 50.7 and Appendix N 

of part 50) has been met. 

2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

An area may be considered to be 

attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS if it meets the NAAQS as 

determined in accordance with 40 CFR 

50.13 and Appendix N of part 50, based 

on three complete, consecutive calendar 

years of quality-assured air quality 

monitoring data. To attain this standard, 

the 98th percentile 24-hour 

concentration, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix N, is less than or equal to 35 

mg/m3 at all relevant monitoring sites in 

the subject area over a 3-year period. 

The relevant data must be collected and 

quality-assured in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA’s 

AQS. The monitors meet 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/moves, 

monitoring diligence, and nearby 

concentrations in determining whether 

to use such data. 

EPA previously finalized 

determinations that the NY-NJ-CT and 

PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas had 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, as noted in section IIA. EPA 

has also reviewed more recent qualityassured data for both NY-NJ-CT and the 

PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas. The 

ambient air monitoring data submitted 

by New Jersey shows PM2.5

concentrations attaining the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2009–2011 time 

period for both nonattainment areas. 

Table 3, below, shows the design 

value by county for the 98th percentile 

24-hour PM2.5 concentrations for the 

2009–2011 time period for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-NJ-CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area monitors. 

Table 4 shows the design value by 

county for the 2009–2011 time period 

for the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area 

monitors. Preliminary design values 11

for the 2010–2012 time period is also 

shown. 

TABLE 3—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE NY-NJ-CT 2006 24–HOUR PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3) 

[The standard is 35 μg/m3] 

Nonattainment area counties 98th percentile 24-hour 

concentrations 

Preliminary 

98th percentile 

24-hour 

concentration 

2011 3-year 

24-hour design 

value 

Preliminary 

2012 3-year 

24-hour design 

value 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009–2011 2010–2012 

NEW JERSEY: 

Bergen .............................................. 27.1 25.1 23.5 19.2 25 23 

Essex ................................................ INC INC 23.9 21.5 INC 23 

Hudson .............................................. 29.2 25.9 28.2 24.6 28 26 

Mercer ............................................... 23.0 26.9 27.7 20.5 26 25 

Middlesex .......................................... 21.0 19.1 20.5 * 17.5 20 * 19 

Monmouth ......................................... NM NM NM NM NM NM 

Morris ................................................ 20.9 22.7 24.4 18.2 23 21 

Passaic ............................................. 26.1 24.4 25.4 21.4 25 * 24 

Somerset ........................................... NM NM NM NM NM NM 

Union ................................................. 27.7 28.1 32.9 25.8 30 29 

NEW YORK: 

Bronx ................................................. 30.0 27.0 27.0 25.1 28 24 

Kings ................................................. 26.9 24.8 24.3 22.1 25 24 

Nassau .............................................. 25.8 20.2 23.1 (*) 23 (*) 

New York .......................................... 29.0 27.0 26.8 24.9 28 26 

Orange .............................................. 20.6 26.5 20.8 * 20.2 23 * 23 

Queens ............................................. 26.7 25.5 24.7 20.5 26 * 24 

Richmond .......................................... 24.6 25.5 23.2 22.1 24 * 24 

Rockland ........................................... NM NM NM NM NM NM 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38657 

TABLE 3—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE NY-NJ-CT 2006 24–HOUR PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3)—Continued 

[The standard is 35 μg/m3] 

Nonattainment area counties 98th percentile 24-hour 

concentrations 

Preliminary 

98th percentile 

24-hour concentration 

2011 3-year 

24-hour design 

value 

Preliminary 

2012 3-year 

24-hour design 

value 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009–2011 2010–2012 

Suffolk ............................................... 21.6 26.1 21.7 18.7 23 22 

Westchester ...................................... 27.0 26.7 22.7 (*) 25 (*) 

CONNECTICUT: 

Fairfield ............................................. 26.4 24.2 25.2 22.5 26 24 

New Haven ....................................... 30.2 25.5 27.5 22.0 28 25 

NM—No monitor located in county. 

INC—All counties listed as INC did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement for the relevant time period. 

*—Missing 1 or more quarters. 

TABLE 4—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PA-NJ-DE 2006 24–HOUR PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3) 

[The standard is 35 μg/m3] 

Nonattainment area counties 98th percentile 24-hour concentrations 

Preliminary 

98th percentile 

24-hour concentration 

2011 3-year 

24-hour design 

value 

Preliminary 

2012 3-year 

24-hour design 

value 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009–2011 2010–2012 

NEW JERSEY: 

Camden ............................................ 25.0 23.4 24.3 19.8 24 23 

Gloucester ......................................... 21.9 21.6 22.2 21.8 22 * 22 

Burlington .......................................... NM NM NM NM NM NM 

DELAWARE: 

New Castle ....................................... 28.4 27.9 24.7 24.2 27 26 

PENNSYLVANIA: 

Bucks ................................................ 25.8 28.3 29.7 28.2 28 29 

Chester ............................................. 31.1 35.1 33.8 24.1 33 31 

Delaware ........................................... 27.9 32.8 28.6 * 31.1 30 * 31 

Montgomery ...................................... 27.2 25.9 27.6 21.8 27 25 

Philadelphia ...................................... 28.6 28.9 30.6 31.4 29 30 

NM—No monitor located in county. 

*—Missing 1 or more quarters. 

Air monitoring data indicates that the 

NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE 

nonattainment areas continue to meet 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

concludes that the NY-NJ-CT and the 

PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas are 

continuing to attain the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA proposes 

that the statutory criterion for 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS (40 CFR 50.13 and Appendix N 

of part 50) has been met. 

B. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA 

EPA has determined that the NNJ and 

the SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas have 

met all SIP requirements applicable for 

purposes of this redesignation under 

section 110 of the CAA (General SIP 

Requirements) and that, upon final 

approval of the 2007 attainment year 

emissions inventory, as discussed below 

in this proposed rulemaking, it will 

have met all applicable SIP 

requirements under part D of Title I of 

the CAA, in accordance with CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA 

is proposing to find that all applicable 

requirements of the New Jersey SIP for 

purposes of redesignation have been 

approved in accordance with CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). 

1. Section 110 SIP Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA 

delineates the general requirements for 

a SIP, which include enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques, 

provisions for the establishment and 

operation of appropriate devices 

necessary to collect data on ambient air 

quality, and programs to enforce the 

limitations. The general SIP elements 

and requirements set forth in CAA 

section 110(a)(2) include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

• Submittal of a SIP that has been 

adopted by the state after reasonable 

public notice and hearing; 

• Provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

• Implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD)); 

• Provisions for the implementation 

of part D requirements for New Source 

Review (NSR) permit programs; 

• Provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and 

• Provisions for public and local 

agency participation in planning and 

emission control rule development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA 

requires that SIPs contain certain 

measures to prevent sources in a state 

from significantly contributing to air 

quality problems in another state. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain states to establish 

programs to address the interstate 

transport of air pollutants in accordance 

with the NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998 

(63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38658 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) 

and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and 

CAIR, May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). 

However, the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) 

requirements for a state are not linked 

with a particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification in that 

state. EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classifications are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus, EPA does not 

believe that these requirements are 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. 

In addition, EPA believes that the 

other CAA section 110(a)(2) elements 

not connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions and not linked with an 

area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The area will still be 

subject to these requirements after it is 

redesignated. EPA concludes that the 

CAA section 110(a)(2) and part D 

requirements which are linked with a 

particular area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request, and that CAA section 110(a)(2) 

elements not linked in the area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. This 

approach is consistent with EPA’s 

existing policy on applicability of 

conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and 

oxygenated fuels requirement. See 

Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and 

final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 

10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final 

rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); 

and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 

FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also 

the discussion on this issue in the 

Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR at 

37890, June 19, 2000) and in the 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation 

(66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001). 

On April 10, 2013 (78 FR at 21296) 

EPA proposed action on New Jersey’s 

section 110 ‘‘infrastructure SIPs’’ 

required under CAA section 110(a)(2) 

that were submitted by the state. New 

Jersey submitted an infrastructure SIP 

on February 25, 2008 that addressed the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On January 

20, 2010 the state submitted an 

infrastructure SIP that addressed the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA will 

be acting on those SIPs under separate 

actions. 

EPA has reviewed the New Jersey SIP 

and has concluded that it meets the 

general SIP requirements under section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA to the extent they 

are applicable for purposes for 

redesignating the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5

nonattainment areas to attainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Notwithstanding the fact that EPA has 

not yet completed rulemaking on New 

Jersey’s submittals for the PM2.5

infrastructure SIP elements of section 

110(a)(2), these requirements are, 

however, statewide requirements that 

are not linked to the PM2.5

nonattainment status of the NNJ and 

SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP 

elements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of review of 

New Jersey’s PM2.5 redesignation 

request. 

2. Title I, part D nonattainment 

requirements 

Subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the 

CAA sets forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas. All areas that were 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS were 

designated under this subpart of the 

CAA, and the requirements applicable 

to them are contained in sections 172 

and 176. EPA’s analysis of the 

particulate-matter-specific provisions of 

Subpart 4 of part D of Title I as a result 

of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit 

decision is discussed earlier in this 

notice. 

Section 172 Requirements 

Under CAA section172, states with 

nonattainment areas must submit plans 

providing for timely attainment and 

meet a variety of other requirements. As 

mentioned, EPA has finalized 

determinations that the NY-NJ-CT and 

PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas had 

attained the 1997 annual and the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Notwithstanding that New Jersey’s 

obligation to submit an attainment 

demonstration, RACT/RACM, RFP, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to the attainment 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS has been 

suspended due to EPA’s determination 

that the nonattainment areas attained 

the NAAQS, New Jersey had previously 

submitted a SIP revision (PM2.5

attainment plan) for attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP was 

submitted to EPA on April 1, 2009. EPA 

proposed to approve the PM2.5

attainment plan on December 14, 2012 

(77 FR 74421). As a result of the 

determination of attainment, the only 

remaining requirement to be considered 

is the emission inventory required 

under CAA section 172(c)(3). 

The General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I also discusses 

the evaluation of these requirements in 

the context of EPA’s consideration of a 

redesignation request. The General 

Preamble sets forth EPA’s view of 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

evaluating redesignation requests when 

an area is attaining the standard. See 

General Preamble for Implementation of 

Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). 

Because attainment has been reached 

for the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE 

nonattainment areas, no additional 

measures are needed to provide for 

attainment. CAA section 172(c)(1) 

requirements for an attainment 

demonstration and RACT/RACM are no 

longer considered to be applicable 

requirements for as long as the area 

continues to attain the standard until 

redesignation. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). 

The RFP requirement under CAA 

section 172(c)(2) is similarly not 

relevant for purposes of redesignation. 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of actual 

emissions. As part of the maintenance 

plan submitted by New Jersey on 

December 26, 2012, and further 

supplemented on May 3, 2013, the State 

has submitted an attainment year 

inventory that meets this requirement. 

For purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

emissions inventory should address not 

only direct emissions of PM2.5, but also 

emissions of all precursors with the 

potential to participate in PM2.5

formation, i.e., SO2, NOX, VOC and NH3. 

The 2007 attainment year emissions 

inventory submitted by New Jersey in 

the December 26, 2012 submission 

addressed PM2.5 (including 

condensables), SO2, and NOX emissions. 

The May 3, 2013 submission addressed 

VOC and NH3. 

The emissions cover the general 

source categories of point sources, area 

sources, onroad sources and nonroad 

sources. The proposed approval of the 

2007 attainment year emissions 

inventory in this rulemaking action will, 

when finalized, meet the requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(3). 

The 2007 emissions inventory was 

prepared by NJDEP and is presented in 

Tables 7A and 7B located in section 

VI.E.2(a), Attainment Emissions 

Inventory, of this action. The tables 

show the 2007 base year PM2.5, NOx,

SO2, VOC and NH3 annual emission 

inventories for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5

nonattainment areas. EPA’s detailed 

evaluation of the base year inventories 

for all pollutants are addressed in 

section VI.E.2.(a), Attainment Emissions 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38659 

12 Guidance on transportation conformity SIPs 

can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/policy/420b09001.pdf. 13CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to 

submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain 

Federal criteria and procedures for determining 

transportation conformity. Transportation 

conformity SIPs are different from MVEBs that are 

established in control strategy SIPs and 

maintenance plans. 

Inventory, of this action. A copy of the 

Technical Support Document 13

submitted by New Jersey is included in 

the New Jersey SIP submission. 

Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires 

the identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

and CAA section 172(c)(5) requires 

source permits for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources anywhere in the 

nonattainment area. EPA has 

determined that, since the PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a nonattainment New Source 

Review (NSR) program be approved 

prior to redesignation, provided that the 

area demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS without part D NSR. A more 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in the memorandum from 

Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 

1994 entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source 

Review Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment.’’ 

New Jersey has not relied on a part D 

NSR program to maintain air quality for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover, because the 

NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

are being redesignated to attainment by 

this action, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) requirements will 

be applicable to new or modified 

sources of PM2.5 in the area. 

New Jersey currently implements NSR 

in the thirteen nonattainment counties 

through the ‘‘transitional’’ NSR 

provisions contained in Appendix S of 

40 CFR Part 51 and the USEPA policy 

memorandum dated July 21, 2011, 

concerning interpollutant offsets. The 

Federal provisions and policy 

memorandum will be superseded once 

New Jersey revises its Emission Offset 

Rule N.J.A.C. 7:27–18. 

New Jersey does not have its own 

promulgated regulations as part of the 

SIP for part C Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) rules. New Jersey is 

appropriately implementing the PSD 

program through the delegated federal 

PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. The 

program will become effective in the 

NNJ and SNJ areas upon redesignation 

to attainment. 

Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to 

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the standard. 

Because attainment has been reached in 

the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE 

nonattainment areas, no additional 

control measures are needed to provide 

for attainment. 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA 

believes the New Jersey SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that 

SIPs in nonattainment areas ‘‘shall 

provide for the implementation of 

specific measures to be undertaken if 

the area fails to make reasonable further 

progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by 

the attainment date applicable under 

this part. Such measures shall be 

included in the plan revision as 

contingency measures to take effect in 

any such case without further action by 

the State or [EPA].’’ This contingency 

measure requirement is inextricably tied 

to the reasonable further progress and 

attainment demonstration requirements. 

Because attainment has been reached for 

the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, contingency measures 

are not applicable for redesignation. 

Section 176 Conformity Requirements 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine transportation conformity 

applies to transportation plans, 

programs and projects that are 

developed, funded or approved under 

Title 23 of the United States Code 

(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act. 

The requirement to determine general 

conformity applies to all other federally 

supported or funded projects. State 

transportation conformity SIP revisions 

must be consistent with Federal 

transportation conformity regulations 

relating to consultation, enforcement 

and enforceability that EPA 

promulgated pursuant to its authority 

under the CAA 12. 

EPA interprets the conformity 13 SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request under section 107(d) because 

state conformity rules are still required 

after redesignation and Federal 

conformity rules apply where state rules 

have not been approved. See Wall v. 

EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) 

(upholding this interpretation); see also 

60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Tampa, Florida). 

C. Fully Approved SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA 

requires that for an area to be 

redesignated the Administrator has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k). 

Upon final approval of New Jersey’s 

2007 attainment year emissions 

inventory, EPA will have fully approved 

the SIPs for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5

nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS under section 

110(k) for all requirements applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 

attainment year emissions inventory 

(submitted as part of its maintenance 

plan) for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5

nonattainment areas as meeting the 

requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, New Jersey 

will have satisfied all applicable 

requirements under part D of Title I of 

the CAA. 

D. The Air Quality Improvement Must 

Be Permanent and Enforceable 

The improvement in air quality must 

be due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP and 

applicable Federal air pollution control 

regulations and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions (CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA proposes to 

determine that the air quality 

improvement in New Jersey in the NNJ 

and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, Federal 

measures, and other state adopted 

measures. 

New Jersey’s redesignation 

submission cited a number of regulatory 

programs that provided for emission 

reductions of PM2.5, and PM2.5

precursors NOX, and SO2. New Jersey 

also included control measures for 

VOCs, which were not considered 

quantifiable precursors when the 

redesignation request was submitted, as 

they expected some PM2.5 benefit from 

the implementation of VOC control 

measures. 

The regulatory control measures for 

PM2.5, and PM2.5 precursors VOCs, NOX, 

and SO2, included in New Jersey’s 

redesignation submission have been 

adopted into the SIP, which provided 

for emission reductions from 2002 to 

2009, the year modeled for the 

attainment demonstration for the 1997 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38660 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

PM2.5 NAAQS. New Jersey also included 

additional measures that were adopted 

by the state, but not yet implemented, 

that would provide benefit after 2009. 

From 2002 to 2009, statewide emissions 

decreased significantly: PM2.5 emissions 

decreased by 34 percent, NOX emissions 

have decreased by 39 percent, and SO2

emissions have decreased by 70 percent. 

Tables 5A and 5B below, show the 

State and Federal control measures, 

which provide emission reductions 

from 2002 to 2009. The tables also 

summarize the maintenance plan 

measures with quantifiable emission 

reductions that New Jersey is relying on 

to demonstrate maintenance; discussed 

in more detail in section VI.E below. 

Additional 2002 to 2009 control 

measures that support the SIP but were 

not quantified, or are VOC only 

measures, are also shown. 

TABLE 5A—NEW JERSEY’S 2002–2009 CONTROL MEASURES THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 AND ITS PRECURSORS

IN NEW JERSEY

Measure 

Targeted pollutants Maintenance plan 

measure 

Affected State rules 

NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (IM) Program.X .................... .................... X X NJAC 7:27–15. 

NOX Budget Program (SIP Call) ..................... X .................... X .................... .................... NJAC 7:27–30. 

Electric Generating Unit (EGU)—BL England 

Administrative Consent Order (ACO).

X X X .................... .................... NA. 

EGUP–SEG—Consent Decree ........................ X X X .................... X NA. 

Refinery Consent Decree (Sunoco, Valero, 

ConocoPhillips).

X X X X X NA. 

Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers 

(ICI) Boilers, Turbines and Engines 2005.

X .................... .................... .................... X NJAC 7:27–27.19. 

Case by Case NOX and VOC (Facility Specific Emission Limits or FSELs/Administrative Emission Limits or AELs).X .................... .................... X .................... NJAC 7:27–16, 19. 

Sewage and Sludge Incinerators ..................... X .................... .................... .................... .................... NJAC 7:27–19.28. 

New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program.X X X X X NJAC 7:27–29. 

Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) .... X .................... .................... .................... .................... NJAC 7:27–19.13. 

Asphalt Production Plants ................................ X .................... .................... .................... X NJAC 7:27–19.9. 

ICI Boilers 2009 ............................................... X .................... .................... .................... X NJAC 7:27–19.7. 

EGU-High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) ........ X .................... X .................... .................... NJAC 7:27–19.29. 

Additional New Jersey Measures That Support the SIP 

Stage I and II (Gasoline Transfer Operations). .................... .................... .................... X .................... NJAC 7:27–16. 

Architectural Coatings 2005 ............................. .................... .................... .................... X .................... NJAC 7:27–23. 

Consumer Products 2005 ................................ .................... .................... .................... X .................... NJAC 7:27–24. 

Mobile Equipment Refinishing (Auto body) ..... .................... .................... .................... X .................... NJAC 7:27–16. 

Solvent Cleaning .............................................. .................... .................... .................... X .................... NJAC 7:27–16. 

Portable Fuel Containers 2005 ........................ .................... .................... .................... X .................... NJAC 7:27–24. 

Mercury Rule .................................................... X X X .................... .................... NJAC 7:27–27. 

Diesel Vehicle Retrofit Program ...................... .................... X .................... .................... .................... NJAC 7:27–32, 14. 

Consumer Products 2009 ................................ .................... .................... .................... X .................... NJAC 7:27–24. 

Adhesives & Sealants ...................................... .................... .................... .................... X .................... NJAC 7:27–26. 

Asphalt Paving (cutback and emulsified) ........ .................... .................... .................... X .................... NJAC 7:27–16.19. 

Control Technology Guideline (CTG) Group 1: 

Printing.

.................... .................... .................... X .................... NJAC 7:27–16.7. 

Portable Fuel Containers 2009 ........................ .................... .................... .................... X .................... NJAC 7:27–24. 

Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) .. X X X X .................... NJAC 7:27–8. 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) X X X X .................... NA. 

Energy Master Plan ......................................... X X X X .................... NA. 

TABLE 5B—FEDERAL 2002–2009 CONTROL MEASURES THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 AND ITS PRECURSORS IN

NEW JERSEY

Measure 

Targeted pollutants Maintenance plan 

NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC measure 

Residential Woodstove NSPS ................................................................. X X .................... X X 

Motor Vehicle Control Program (Tier 1 and Tier 2) ................................ X X X X X 

Acid Rain Program ................................................................................... X .................... X .................... ....................

Nonroad Diesel Engine Standards .......................................................... X X .................... X X 

Phase 2 Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Nonhandheld Engines at or below 19 kW (lawn and garden) ........................................ X .................... .................... X X 

Phase 2 Standards for Small Spark-Ignition Handheld Engines at or 

below 19 kW (lawn and garden) .......................................................... X .................... .................... X X 

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Defeat Device Settlement .............. X .................... .................... .................... ....................

Gasoline Boats and Personal Watercraft, Outboard Engines ................. X X .................... X X 

National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV) ................................... X X .................... X X 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38661 

TABLE 5B—FEDERAL 2002–2009 CONTROL MEASURES THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 AND ITS PRECURSORS IN

NEW JERSEY—Continued 

Measure 

Targeted pollutants Maintenance plan 

NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC measure 

Large Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines over 19 kW (>50 hp) Tier 1 

and Tier 2 ............................................................................................. X .................... .................... .................... X 

Heavy-Duty Highway Rule—Vehicle Standards and Diesel Fuel Sulfur 

Control .................................................................................................. X X .................... X X 

Diesel Marine Engines over 37 kW Category 1 Tier 2, Category 2 Tier 

2, Category 3 Tier 1 ............................................................................. X .................... .................... X X 

Recreational Vehicles (includes snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, 

and all-terrain vehicles) ........................................................................ X .................... .................... X X 

Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less 

Than 30 Liters per Cylinder Tier 2 and Tier 3 ..................................... X X .................... X X 

USEPA Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards 

including Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT ................................ .................... .................... .................... X X 

Tables 6A and 6B show additional 

post 2009 maintenance plan measures 

with creditable emission reductions, 

including measures that have been 

adopted but not yet implemented, that 

New Jersey is relying on to demonstrate 

maintenance; discussed in more detail 

in section VI.E below. New Jersey’s 

submittal also included additional 

measures to provide additional 

assurance that the improvement in New 

Jersey’s air quality will continue to 

improve. 

TABLE 6A—NEW JERSEY’S POST 2009 CONTROL MEASURES THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 AND ITS PRECURSORS

IN NEW JERSEY

Measure 

Targeted pollutants Maintenance plan 

measure 

Affected State rules 

NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC 

Vehicle IM Program Revisions ........................ X .................... .................... X X NJAC 7:27–15. 

Glass Manufacturing ........................................ X .................... .................... .................... X NJAC 7:27–19.10. 

EGU—Coal, Oil, and Gas Fired Boilers .......... X X X .................... X NJAC 7:27–4.2, 10.2, 

19.4. 

Low Sulfur Distillate and Residual Fuel Strategies.X .................... X .................... X NJAC 7:27–9, 7:27– 

27.9. 

TABLE 6B—FEDERAL POST 2009 CONTROL MEASURES THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 AND ITS PRECURSORS IN

NEW JERSEY

Measure 

Targeted pollutants Maintenance plan 

NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC measure 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines MACT ................................ X X .................... .................... X 

New Jersey also presented data to 

demonstrate that the decline in PM2.5

concentrations was due primarily to 

permanent and enforceable control 

measures rather than the country’s 

economic recession that began in 2007 

and resulting downturn in energy use. 

Although electricity generation in 

New Jersey decreased by one percent 

from 2007 to 2009, electricity generation 

in New Jersey has experienced an 

overall increase of 5 percent from 2002 

to 2011. In contrast, emission reductions 

have outpaced generation changes with 

decreases of 93, 84 and 72 percent for 

SO2, NOX and PM2.5, respectively, from 

2000–2011, with significant emission 

reductions occurring prior to 2007. 

From 2007 to 2009, emission reductions 

for SO2, NOX and PM2.5 show decreases 

of 65, 51, and 46 percent, respectively. 

New Jersey also examined the onroad 

mobile sector to determine if statewide 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data 

declined and whether it was significant 

enough to affect air quality compared to 

emission reductions from ‘‘fleet 

turnover’’. ‘‘Fleet turnover’’ refers to the 

replacement of older, more polluting 

vehicles with newer vehicles that emit 

pollutants at lower levels as a result of 

the Federal ‘‘Tier 2’’ new vehicle 

emission standards (began with the 

2004 model year), and further 

augmented by the California Low 

Emission Vehicle (LEV)II new vehicle 

emission standards (began with the 

2009 model year in New Jersey). 

Based on yearly statewide data, VMT 

declined approximately 3.7 percent in 

2008 and 0.5 percent in 2009 after 

steady annual VMT increases of about 

two percent between 1996 and 2006. 

Between 2007 and 2009, emissions of 

PM2.5 decreased by 23 percent, and NOX

by 24 percent. An evaluation of onroad 

emissions data from 2002 to 2009 shows 

New Jersey emissions of PM2.5

decreasing by approximately 39 percent 

and emissions of NOX decreasing by 

approximately 50 percent, even though 

VMT increased by 4.5 to 6 percent. This 

suggests that fleet turnover, rather than 

changes in VMT, had a much greater 

impact on onroad emissions. 

New Jersey has demonstrated that 

actual enforceable emission reductions 

are responsible for the air quality 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38662 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

14See TSD in EPA Docket ID Number EPA–R03– 

OAR–2012–0371 at wwww.regulations.gov for 

discussion of EPA’s procedure for addressing 

missing data not meeting completeness 

requirements for monitors in the PA-NJ-DE 

nonattainment area for the 2006 NAAQS. 

improvement. EPA proposes to find that 

the combination of existing EPAapproved SIP and Federal measures 

contribute to the permanence and 

enforceability of reduction in ambient 

PM2.5 levels that have allowed New 

Jersey to attain the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

E. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant 

to Section 175A of the CAA 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has a 

fully approved maintenance plan 

pursuant to section 175A of the CAA 

(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In 

conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5

nonattainment areas to attainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, New Jersey 

submitted a SIP revision to provide for 

maintenance for at least 10 years after 

the effective date of redesignation to 

attainment. EPA believes this 

maintenance plan meets the 

requirements for approval under section 

175A of the CAA. 

1. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, the State must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

which demonstrates that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 10 

years following the initial 10-year 

period. To address the possibility of 

future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future PM2.5 violations. The 

Calcagni Memorandum, dated 

September 4, 1992, provides further 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan, explaining that a 

maintenance plan should address five 

requirements: (1) An attainment 

emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance 

demonstration showing maintenance for 

10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain 

the existing monitoring network; (4) 

verification of continued attainment; 

and (5) a contingency plan to prevent or 

correct future violations. As is discussed 

more fully below, EPA proposes to find 

that the New Jersey maintenance plan 

includes all the necessary components 

and is thus proposing to approve it as 

a revision to the New Jersey SIP. 

2. Analysis of the Maintenance Plan 

The maintenance demonstration must 

demonstrate effective safeguards of the 

NAAQS for at least 10 years following 

the redesignation showing that future 

PM2.5 and precursor emissions will not 

exceed the level of the attainment year. 

States are required to submit the 

following inventory elements to satisfy 

the redesignation/maintenance plan 

inventory requirements: 

Maintenance Plan Attainment 

Inventory. Maintenance plan provisions 

include a comprehensive, accurate, and 

current emissions inventory from all 

point, area, nonroad and onroad mobile 

sources for the PM2.5 nonattainment 

area. States are required to develop an 

attainment inventory to identify the 

level of emissions in the area that is 

sufficient to attain the NAAQS. This 

inventory should include the emissions 

during the time period associated with 

the monitoring data showing 

attainment. 

Maintenance Plan Interim Year 

Inventory. At a minimum, emissions 

should be projected to a midpoint year 

between the attainment year and the 

endpoint/10-year inventory. This 

inventory provides a summary of 

controlled emissions for point, area, 

nonroad and onroad mobile sources for 

the PM2.5 nonattainment area for the 

interim year inventory. 

Maintenance Plan Projected Final 

Year Inventory. Emissions should be 

projected from the attainment year to at 

least 10 years into the future. This 

inventory provides a summary of 

controlled emissions for point, area, 

nonroad and onroad mobile sources at 

the endpoint/10-year period. 

For the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5

nonattainment areas, 2007 emissions 

were projected to 2017 and 2025. New 

Jersey must demonstrate, with the 

control programs identified in this SIP, 

that total 2017 or 2025 projected 

emissions do not exceed the 2007 

emission levels. 

Below are EPA’s review and 

evaluation of the maintenance 

demonstration for the two areas. 

Additional detail is provided in the 

TSD. 

(a) Attainment Emissions Inventory 

Selection of 2007 Base Year as the 

Maintenance Plan Attainment Year. 

Inventory An attainment inventory is 

comprised of the emissions during the 

time period associated with the 

monitoring data showing attainment. 

New Jersey selected 2007 as the 

attainment inventory year for the SNJ 

and NNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards. 

For the 1997 PM2.5 annual standard, 

the NNJ nonattainment area had 

monitored attainment based on air 

monitoring data for 2007–2009; and the 

SNJ nonattainment area had monitored 

attainment based on air monitoring data 

for 2007–2009, and 2008–2010. 

Additionally, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard, the NNJ PM2.5 nonattainment 

area had monitored attainment for 

2007–2009, and 2008–1010; and the SNJ 

PM2.5 nonattainment area had 

monitored attainment for 2008–2010, 

and 2009–2011. 

Historically for the attainment 

inventory, the state would select an 

attainment year inventory characterizing 

emissions in the maintenance area from 

one of the three years in the three-year 

period in which the state monitored 

attainment. For the SNJ PM2.5

nonattainment area, New Jersey should 

have selected 2008 or 2009 as the 

attainment year inventory for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard. However, the 

state believes that the 2007 inventory is 

an appropriate and representative 

inventory to use as a surrogate 

attainment inventory for the 2008 

inventory for the SNJ PM2.5

nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard for several reasons 

discussed: 

• The 2007 inventory is the most 

comprehensive inventory developed by 

states in the region for SIP purposes. 

• For all of the available data, the 

monitors in the SNJ nonattainment area 

showed compliance with the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard of 35 mg/m3 during 

the 2007–2009 monitoring period. 

However, there was some incomplete 

data for 2007 in the SNJ area that was 

not able to be addressed through data 

substitution and statistical analysis. 

Incomplete data also existed for the 

2008–2010 monitoring period, but was 

able to be addressed through data 

substitution and statistical analysis.14

• The monitors in the NNJ PM2.5

nonattainment area showed compliance 

with the 35 mg/m3 daily standard during 

the 2007–2009 monitoring period. 

• The 2007 and 2008 emission 

inventories are comparable, as 

demonstrated by a comparison of New 

Jersey’s 2007 inventory with USEPA’s 

2008 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI). 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38663 

• Most important, comparison of the 

2008 to the 2017 and 2025 inventories, 

shows that emissions will continue to 

decrease and will be well below the 

2007 and 2008 levels for PM2.5 and its 

precursors, NOX, and SO2, in the SNJ 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

For these reasons, the state selected 

the 2007 inventory as a surrogate for the 

2008 inventory. EPA proposes to concur 

that the 2007 base year emissions 

inventory is appropriate as the 

attainment year inventory for the PM2.5

redesignation maintenance plan. 

Criteria for Approval of the 

Maintenance Plan Attainment Year 

Inventory. There are general and 

specific components of an acceptable 

emission inventory. In general, the State 

must submit a revision to its SIP and the 

emission inventory must meet the 

minimum requirements for reporting by 

source category. 

For a base year emission inventory to 

be acceptable it must pass all of the 

following acceptance criteria: 

1. Evidence that the inventory was 

quality assured by the state and its 

implementation documented. 

2. The point source inventory must be 

complete. 

3. Point source emissions must have 

been prepared or calculated according 

to the current EPA guidance. 

4. The area source inventory must be 

complete. 

5. The area source emissions must 

have been prepared or calculated 

according to the current EPA guidance. 

6. Non-road mobile emissions were 

prepared according to current EPA 

guidance for all of the source categories. 

7. The method (e.g., Highway 

Performance Monitoring System or a 

network transportation planning model) 

used to develop VMT estimates must 

follow EPA guidance. The VMT 

development methods must be 

adequately described and documented 

in the inventory report. 

8. The Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator (MOVES) model must be 

correctly used to produce emission 

factors for each of the vehicle classes. 

EPA’s Evaluation of the Maintenance 

Plan Attainment Year Inventory 

Quality Assurance Plan Implementation 

The Quality Assurance (QA) plan was 

implemented for all portions of the 

inventory. QA checks were performed 

relative to data collection and analysis, 

and double counting of emissions from 

point, area and mobile sources. QA/QC 

checks were conducted to ensure 

accuracy of units, unit conversions, 

transposition of figures, and 

calculations. 

Point and Area Source Inventories 

New Jersey’s inventory includes major 

point sources based on specific 

thresholds for each pollutant in tons per 

year (tpy). The inventory report 

describes how point and area source 

activity levels and their associated 

parameters were developed, and how 

the data were used to calculate emission 

estimates. The inventory lists the source 

categories that are included in (and 

excluded from) the area source 

inventory. The report provides 

referenced documents for activity level 

and emission factors used. Information 

on how control efficiencies were 

derived (with the associated sample 

calculations) is also provided. Point and 

area source summary information on 

detailed county and/or nonattainment 

area levels, are included in the 

inventory. Where applicable, annual 

emissions are provided for PM2.5, NOx,

SO2, VOC and NH3 for the PM2.5

nonattainment areas. 

The primary sources of anthropogenic 

NH3 emissions are two agricultural 

operations, livestock and fertilizer. NH3

emissions from livestock and fertilizer 

were prepared by the USEPA using the 

Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) 

Ammonia Model, version 6. The model 

runs are based on 2007 activity levels. 

NH3 emissions for industrial 

refrigeration, composting, and publicly 

owned treatment works were prepared 

by the USEPA. 

Nonroad Mobile Source Inventory 

For New Jersey, the predominant nonroad mobile source categories (i.e., 

agricultural equipment, construction 

equipment, industrial equipment, 

airport service equipment, light 

commercial equipment, lawn and 

garden equipment,etc.) were developed 

by the Nonroad Emissions Equipment 

Model 2008 released by EPA’s Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ). 

Nonroad mobile source emissions are 

presented on a source category, county 

and/or nonattainment area basis. Where 

applicable, annual emissions are 

provided for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and 

NH3 for the PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

Aircraft, Locomotive and Commercial 

Marine Vessel Inventories 

Where applicable, aircraft, 

locomotive, and commercial marine 

vessel emissions on a county and/or 

nonattainment area basis are provided 

for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and NH3. 

Activity level and emissions data for 

each source category is provided. 

Aircraft, locomotive and commercial 

marine vessel source emissions are 

presented on a source category, county 

and/or nonattainment area basis. Where 

applicable, annual emissions are 

provided for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and 

NH3 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

Onroad Mobile Source Inventory 

New Jersey’s mobile source inventory 

was developed by using the travel 

demand model (TDM) used by the two 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations in 

the States as the basis for estimating 

actual county level and functional class 

VMT estimates. Estimates were 

developed from the aforementioned 

sources for each roadway functional 

class, by county, in each of the PM2.5

nonattainment areas. MOVES2010a 

Model was used to generate emission 

factors for on-road vehicle emission 

estimates. It provides the sources for the 

key inputs into the mobile source 

emissions model. Key assumptions are 

also included. Where applicable, PM2.5, 

NOX, SO2, VOC and NH3 mobile 

emissions are presented on county and/ 

or nonattainment area basis. Where 

applicable, annual emissions are 

provided for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and 

NH3 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

Tables 7A and 7B below show the 

2007 base year PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC 

and NH3 annual emission inventories 

for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5

nonattainment areas. 

TABLE 7A—2007 NNJ AREA BASE YEAR INVENTORY

[In tons/year] 

Pollutant Point Area Nonroad mobile Onroad mobile Total 

PM 2.5 ........... 4,937 5,498 2,497 3,677 16,610 

NOX .............. 15,828 16,122 39.457 93,385 164,793 

SOX .............. 20,360 4,983 5,761 586 31,690 

VOC ............. 7,584 60,560 26,833 47,490 142,667 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38664 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

15Emission Inventory Improvement Program 

guidance document titled Volume X, Emission 

Projections, dated December 1999 

TABLE 7A—2007 NNJ AREA BASE YEAR INVENTORY—Continued 

[In tons/year] 

Pollutant Point Area Nonroad mobile Onroad mobile Total 

NH3 .............. 804 2,909 37 2,101 5,840 

TABLE 7B—2007 SNJ AREA BASE YEAR INVENTORY

[In tons/year] 

Pollutant Point Area Nonroad mobile Onroad mobile Total 

PM 2.5 ........... 800 2,837 560 1,055 5,159 

NOX .............. 4,453 3,483 6,790 26,992 41,718 

SOX .............. 2,034 1,128 1,642 161 4,965 

VOC ............. 2,041 17,184 6,490 10,880 36,594 

NH3 .............. 53 1,032 12 462 1,559 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 

base year inventory for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, 

VOC and NH3 for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5

nonattainment areas. The 2007 

Maintenance Plan Attainment Year/Base 

Year emissions inventory is 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

for all sources of relevant pollutants in 

the nonattainment area. In all cases the 

2007 attainment/base year inventory 

was done in accordance with EPA 

guidance. The technical support 

document provides additional 

information regarding the review 

conducted by EPA for the 2007 PM2.5

base year inventory. 

(b) 2017 Interim and 2025 End Year 

Projection Inventories 

Criteria for Approval of the 2017 

Interim and 2025 Projection End Year 

Inventories. There are general and 

specific components for acceptable 2017 

Maintenance Plan Interim and 2025 End 

Year Projection Inventories. In general, 

the State must submit a revision to its 

SIP and the aforementioned components 

must meet certain minimum 

requirements for reporting by source 

category. 

For the projection inventories to be 

acceptable they must pass the following 

acceptance criteria: 15

1. Were the 2017 and 2025 projection 

inventories developed in accordance 

with the procedures outlined in EPA’s 

latest guidance? 

2. Were the Plans developed in 

accordance with EPA’s latest guidance 

for Growth Factors, Projections, and 

Control Strategies for Reasonable 

Progress Goal Plans? 

EPA’s Evaluation of the Maintenance 

Plan 2017 Interim and 2025 End Year 

Projection Inventories. A projection of 

2007 PM2.5, NOX, and SO2

anthropogenic emissions to 2017 and 

2025 is required to determine the 

emission reductions needed for 

inventory maintenance plan. The 2017 

and 2025 projection year emission 

inventories are calculated by 

multiplying the 2007 base year 

inventory by factors which estimate 

growth from 2007 to 2017 and 2025. A 

specific growth factor for each source 

type in the inventory is required since 

sources typically grow at different rates. 

Major Point Sources 

Electric Generating Units (EGU) and 

Non-Electric Generating Units (NonEGUs) 

For the major point source category, 

the projected emissions inventories 

were first calculated by estimating 

growth in each source category. As 

appropriate, the 2007 emissions 

inventory was used as the base for 

applying factors to account for 

inventory growth. The point source 

inventory was grown from the 2007 

inventory to 2017 and 2025 for each 

facility using growth factors utilized in 

New Jersey’s Emissions Statement 

Program, US Department of Energy’s 

(USDOE) Annual Energy Outlook 

projections, and NJ Department of Labor 

statistics. 

Area Sources 

For the area source category, New 

Jersey projected emissions from 2007 to 

2017 and 2025 using growth factors 

generated from USDOE 2011 Annual 

Energy Outlook, and state-supplied 

population and employment data, 

where appropriate. 

Non-Road Mobile Sources 

Nonroad Vehicle Equipment Emissions 

Non-road vehicle equipment 

emissions were projected from 2007 to 

2017 and 2025 using the EPA’s 

NONROAD 2008a model (July 2009 

version). This model was used to 

calculate past and future emission 

inventories for all nonroad equipment 

categories except commercial marine 

vessels, locomotives and aircrafts. 

Emissions were determined on a 

monthly basis and combined to provide 

annual emission estimates. 

Aircrafts, Locomotives and Commercial 

Marine Vessels (CMV) 

Aircraft emissions were projected 

from 2007 to 2017 and 2025 based on 

landing and takeoff growth factors from 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

Terminal Area Forecast System for 

2009–2030. 

Locomotives emissions were 

projected from 2007 to 2017 and 2025 

based on combined growth and control 

factors from EPA’s regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) in May 2008 for control 

of locomotive engines and USDOE’s 

2006 Annual Energy Outlook report. 

CMV emissions were projected to 

2017 and 2025 using EPA’s May 2008 

RIA report, for category 1 and 2 vessels 

and EPA’s 2009 RIA report for category 

3 vessels based on combined growth 

and control factors. 

Onroad Mobile Sources 

For the onroad mobile source 

category, the primary indicator and tool 

for developing on-road mobile growth 

and expected emissions are VMT and 

US EPA’s mobile emissions model 

MOVES2010a. Projection years 2017 

and 2025 pollutant emission factors 

were generated by MOVES2010a (with 

the associated controlled measures 

applied, where appropriate) and applied 

to the monthly VMT projections 

provided by the State. Monthly 

emissions were then combined to 

develop annual emission estimates. 

Tables 8A–8C and 9A–9C, show the 

2017 and 2025 projection emission 

inventories controlled after 2007 using 

the aforementioned growth indicators/ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38665 

methodologies for the NNJ and SNJ 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas, respectively. 

TABLE 8A—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE NNJ 

AREA

PM2.5

Sector 2007 2017 2025 Net change 

2008–2025 

Point ................................................................................................................. 4,937 3,131 3,243 ........................

Area ................................................................................................................. 5,498 5,436 5,616 ........................

Nonroad ........................................................................................................... 2,497 1,725 1,410 ........................

On-road ............................................................................................................ 3,677 1,874 1,218 ........................

Total .......................................................................................................... 16,610 12,227 11,487 ¥5,123 

TABLE 8B—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 NOX EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE NNJ 

AREA

NOX

Sector 2007 2017 2025 Net change 

2008–2025 

Point ................................................................................................................. 15,828 13,512 4,126 ........................

Area ................................................................................................................. 16,122 15,969 3,429 ........................

Nonroad ........................................................................................................... 39,457 27,050 4,998 ........................

On-road ............................................................................................................ 93,385 45,687 13,504 ........................

Total .......................................................................................................... 164,793 102,218 26,057 ¥138,736 

TABLE 8C—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 SO2 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE NNJ 

AREA

SO2

Sector 2007 2017 2025 Net change 

2008–2025 

Point ................................................................................................................. 20,360 3,583 1,245 ........................

Area ................................................................................................................. 4,983 452 102 ........................

Nonroad ........................................................................................................... 5,761 719 105 ........................

On-road ............................................................................................................ 586 531 129 ........................

Total .......................................................................................................... 31,690 5,295 1,579 ¥30,111 

TABLE 9A—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE SNJ 

AREA

PM2.5

Sector 2007 2017 2025 Net change 

2008–2025 

Point ................................................................................................................. 800 818 858 ........................

Area ................................................................................................................. 2,837 2,243 2,651 ........................

Nonroad ........................................................................................................... 560 372 315 ........................

On-road ............................................................................................................ 1,055 616 278 ........................

Total .......................................................................................................... 5,159 4,549 4,102 ¥1,057 

TABLE 9B—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 NOx EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE SNJ 

AREA

NOX

Sector 2007 2017 2025 Net change 

2008–2025 

Point ................................................................................................................. 4,453 4,126 4,433 ........................

Area ................................................................................................................. 3,483 3,429 3,427 ........................


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38666 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

16 77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012). 

TABLE 9B—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 NOx EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE SNJ 

AREA—Continued 

NOX

Sector 2007 2017 2025 Net change 

2008–2025 

Nonroad ........................................................................................................... 6,790 4,998 3,915 ........................

On-road ............................................................................................................ 26,992 13,504 6,095 ........................

Total .......................................................................................................... 41,718 26,057 17,870 ¥23,848 

TABLE 9C—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 SO2 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE SNJ 

AREA

SO2

Sector 2007 2017 2025 Net change 

2008–2025 

Point ................................................................................................................. 2,034 1,245 1,355 ........................

Area ................................................................................................................. 1,128 102 260 ........................

Nonroad ........................................................................................................... 1,642 105 141 ........................

On-road ............................................................................................................ 161 129 161 ........................

Total .......................................................................................................... 4,965 1,579 1,880 ¥3,085 

The permanent and enforceable 

control measures that are relied on to 

provide continued attainment or 

maintenance of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are listed as 

maintenance plan measures in tables 5 

(A thru B) and 6 (A thru B). New Jersey 

has already implemented, or adopted 

these control measures, some with 

future implementation dates. Additional 

information regarding the control 

measures can be found in the TSD. EPA 

is proposing to approve the 2017 

interim and 2025 projection inventories 

for PM2.5, NOX and SO2 for the NNJ and 

SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas. In all 

cases the 2017 and 2025 projection year 

inventories were performed in 

accordance with EPA guidance. For 

further information concerning EPA’s 

evaluation and analysis of the emission 

inventories, see the TSD available in the 

docket. 

Tables 8A–9C above show the 

inventories for the 2007 attainment year, 

the 2017 interim year, and the 2025 

endpoint year for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5

nonattainment areas. Table 8A–9C show 

that between 2007 and 2017, the NNJ 

and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas, are 

projected to reduce SO2, NOX and PM2.5

emissions substantially. Between 2007 

and 2025, the NNJ and SNJ areas are 

projected to reduce emissions well 

below the 2007 attainment inventory 

emission levels for all three pollutants. 

Thus, the projected emissions 

inventories show that the NNJ and SNJ 

areas will continue to maintain the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

during the 10 year maintenance period. 

Maintenance Demonstration Thru 2025 

As noted in section VI.E.1, CAA 

section 175A requires a state seeking 

redesignation to attainment to submit a 

SIP revision to provide for the 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the area 

‘‘for at least 10 years after the 

redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this 

as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a 

period of 10 years following 

redesignation.’’ See Calcagni 

Memorandum. Where the emissions 

inventory method of showing 

maintenance is used, its purpose is to 

show that emissions during the 

maintenance period will not increase 

over the attainment year inventory. See 

Calcagni Memorandum. 

As discussed in detail above, the 

State’s maintenance plan submission 

expressly documents that the NNJ and 

SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas’ 

emissions inventories will remain below 

the attainment year inventories through 

at least 2025. In addition, for the reasons 

set forth below, EPA proposes to 

determine that the State’s submission 

further demonstrates that the NNJ and 

SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas will 

continue to maintain the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at least 

through 2025: 

• As explained in the previous 

section, levels of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5

are projected to decrease substantially 

between 2007 and 2025. EPA believes 

that it is highly improbable that sudden 

increases would occur that could exceed 

the attainment year inventory levels in 

2025. 

• Air quality concentrations for PM2.5

are 1 to 2 mg/m3 or more under the 

NAAQS level, indicating a margin of 

safety in the event of any emissions 

increase. As shown in tables 1 and 2, for 

the 1997 annual NAAQS of 15 mg/m3, 

the design value for 2009–2011 for the 

NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area 

value was 11.7 mg/m3; and the design 

value for 2009–2011 for the PA-NJ-DE 

PM2.5 nonattainment area was measured 

at 13.7 mg/m3. As shown in tables 3 and 

4, for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/ 

m3, the design value for 2009–2011 for 

the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area 

was 30 mg/m3; and the design value for 

2009–2011 for the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5

nonattainment area was measured at 33 

mg/m3. 

• Air quality concentrations showed a 

significant downward trend over time 

for both the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas for both the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 

figures 3 thru 6 of the New Jersey 

redesignation request, which is 

available in the docket. 

• Additional emissions reductions 

will occur now, and in the future, from 

EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards (MATS) 16, New Jersey’s 

Diesel Retrofit Program, NJDEP’s 

amended Administrative Consent Order 

with B.L. England, and from New 

Jersey’s Clean Construction Program. 

See the TSD for more information 

regarding these measures, including 

expected emission reductions. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38667 

17These emissions estimates were taken from the 

emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

18These emissions estimates were taken from the 

emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

(c) Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

With regard to the redesignation of 

NNJ and SNJ areas, in evaluating the 

effect of the D.C. Circuit’s remand of 

EPA’s implementation rule, which 

included presumptions against 

consideration of VOC and NH3 as PM2.5

precursors, in this proposal EPA is also 

considering the impact of the decision 

on the maintenance plan required under 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To 

begin with, EPA notes that the area has 

attained the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards and that the state, as shown 

below, has shown that attainment of 

that standard is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

State’s maintenance plan shows 

continued maintenance of the 1997 

PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by 

tracking the levels of the precursors 

whose control brought about attainment 

of the standards in the NNJ and SNJ 

nonattainment areas. EPA therefore 

determines that the additional 

consideration related to the 

maintenance plan requirements that 

results from the Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision is that of assessing the 

potential role of VOC and NH3 in 

demonstrating continued maintenance 

in this area. As explained below, based 

upon documentation provided by the 

State and supporting information, EPA 

believes that the maintenance plan for 

the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas 

need not include any additional 

emission reductions of VOC or NH3 in 

order to provide for continued 

maintenance of the standard. 

First, as noted above in EPA’s 

discussion of section 189(e), VOC 

emission levels in this area have 

historically been well-controlled under 

SIP requirements related to ozone and 

other pollutants. Second, total NH3

emissions for the NNJ and SNJ area are 

very low, estimated to be less than 6,000 

and 1,600 tons per year, respectively. 

See Tables 7A and 7B. This amount of 

NH3 emissions appears especially small 

in comparison to the total amounts of 

SO2, NOX, and even PM2.5 emissions 

from sources in the areas. Third, as 

described below, available information 

shows that no precursor, including VOC 

and NH3, is expected to increase over 

the maintenance period so as to 

interfere with or undermine the State’s 

maintenance demonstration. 

NNJ and SNJ areas’ maintenance 

plans show that emissions of direct 

PM2.5, SO2, and NOX are projected to 

decrease substantially over the 

maintenance period. See Tables 8A–9C. 

In addition, emissions inventories used 

in the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

show that VOC and NH3 emissions for 

the NNJ and SNJ areas are projected to 

decrease substantially from 2007 

through 2020. See Tables 10A and 10B 

below. While the RIA emissions 

inventories are only projected out to 

2020, there is no reason to believe that 

this downward trend would not 

continue through 2025. Given that the 

NNJ and SNJ areas are already attaining 

the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

with the current level of emissions from 

sources in the area, the downward trend 

of emissions inventories would be 

consistent with continued attainment. 

Indeed, projected emissions reductions 

for the precursors that the State is 

addressing for purposes of the 1997 

PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS indicate 

that the areas should continue to attain 

the NAAQS following the precursor 

control strategy that the state has 

already elected to pursue. Even if VOC 

and NH3 emissions were to increase 

unexpectedly between 2020 and 2025, 

the overall emissions reductions 

projected in direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX

would be sufficient to offset any 

increases. For these reasons, EPA 

proposes to determine that local 

emissions of all of the potential PM2.5

precursors will not increase to the 

extent that they will cause monitored 

PM2.5 levels to violate the 1997 PM2.5

and 2006 PM2.5 standards during the 

maintenance period. 

TABLE 10A—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND NH3 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

NNJ AREA 17

Sector 

VOC NH3

2007 2020 Net change 

2007–2020 2007 2020 Net change 2007–2020 

Point ......................................................... 7,150 7,508 ........................ 852 1,301 ........................

Area .......................................................... 59,925 60,657 ........................ 2,810 2,872 ........................

Nonroad ................................................... 29,203 16,613 ........................ 28 34 ........................

On-road .................................................... 44,389 15,285 ........................ 2,433 1,243 ........................

Total .................................................. 140,667 100,063 ¥40,604 6,123 5,450 ¥703 

TABLE 10B—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND NH3 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

SNJ AREA 18

Sector 

VOC NH3

2007 2020 Net change 

2007–2020 2007 2020 Net change 2007–2020 

Point ......................................................... 1,874 1,837 ........................ 123 159 ........................

Area .......................................................... 18,140 18,488 ........................ 1,075 1,103 ........................

Nonroad ................................................... 7,023 3,890 ........................ 10 12 ........................

On-road .................................................... 9,072 3,295 ........................ 469 263 ........................

Total .................................................. 36,109 27,150 ¥8,959 1,677 1,527 ¥150 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38668 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

In addition, available air quality 

modeling analyses show continued 

maintenance of the standard during the 

maintenance period. The modeling 

analysis conducted for the RIA for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the 

design value for this area is expected to 

continue to decline through 2020. In the 

RIA analysis, the 2020 modeled design 

value is 10.8 mg/m3 for the NY-NJ-CT 

nonattainment area, and 9.4 mg/m3 for 

the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area. Given 

that precursor emissions are projected to 

decrease through 2025, it is reasonable 

to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels 

in this area will also continue to 

decrease through 2025. 

Thus, EPA proposes to determine that 

there is ample justification to conclude 

that the NNJ and SNJ areas should be 

redesignated, even taking into 

consideration the emissions of other 

precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5. 

After consideration of the D.C. Circuit’s 

January 4, 2013 decision, and for the 

reasons set forth in this notice, EPA 

proposes to approve the State’s 

maintenance plan and its request to 

redesignate the NNJ and SNJ 

nonattainment areas to attainment for 

the 1997 PM2.5 annual and the 2006 

PM2.5 24-hour standards. 

(d) Monitoring Network 

New Jersey has committed to tracking 

the air quality for continued attainment 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS, and will work 

with EPA prior to making any changes 

to the existing PM2.5 air monitoring 

network. 

The State is obligated to work with 

EPA each year through the air 

monitoring network review process, as 

required by 40 CFR Part 58 to 

determine: (1) The adequacy of the 

PM2.5 monitoring network; (2) if 

additional monitoring is needed; and (3) 

if/when sites can be discontinued or 

relocated. Any changes to the 

monitoring network, including 

replacing or moving monitor(s) to new 

locations, as necessary, will be made 

through the air monitoring network 

review process. This review process 

undergoes a public comment period, 

and is subject to approval by the EPA. 

Air monitoring data will continue to be 

quality assured according to 

requirements in 40 CFR Part 58. 

EPA proposes to conclude that the 

State of New Jersey has met the 

requirement for continuing to operate an 

appropriate air monitoring network. 

(e) Verification of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the state depends, in part, on 

the state’s efforts towards tracking 

indicators of continued attainment 

during the maintenance period. New 

Jersey’s plan for verifying continued 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS consists 

of continued ambient PM2.5 air quality 

monitoring in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR Part 58. New 

Jersey will also continue to develop and 

submit periodic emission inventories as 

required by the Federal Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (codified at 

40 CFR Part 51, subpart A). 

EPA proposes to approve New Jersey’s 

plans for verifying continued attainment 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

(f) Contingency Measures in the 

Maintenance Plan 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

a maintenance plan include such 

contingency provision as EPA deems 

necessary to ensure that the state will 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 

The maintenance plan should identify 

the contingency measures to be adopted, 

a schedule and procedure for adoption 

and implementation of the contingency 

measures, and a time limit for action by 

the state. The state should also identify 

specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be adopted and 

implemented. The maintenance plan 

must include a requirement that the 

state will implement all measures with 

respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 

were contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

See section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, New Jersey has included 

contingency provisions in the 

maintenance plan to address possible 

future annual PM2.5 air quality 

problems. New Jersey will use the 

following triggers to determine the 

cause of elevated levels, and implement 

contingency measures, as necessary, in 

accordance with the described schedule: 

1. If monitored PM2.5 concentrations 

in any year exceed the level of the 

NAAQS, NJDEP will perform a data 

assessment to determine the cause of the 

violation. This assessment will be 

performed when the annual average 

PM2.5 concentration for the previous 

year exceeds 15 mg/m3 at any New 

Jersey monitoring site, or when the 98th 

percentile of the 24-hour average daily 

concentrations exceeds 35 mg/m3 at any 

New Jersey air monitoring site. NJDEP 

will perform this evaluation within six 

months of the data certification. New 

Jersey will work with the other states in 

its shared multi-state nonattainment 

areas as necessary. 

2. If annual or 24-hour PM2.5 design 

values exceed 15 mg/m3 or 35 mg/m3, 

respectively, NJDEP will evaluate all 

appropriate data to determine the cause 

using the same analyses discussed in 

Item number 1. NJDEP will perform this 

evaluation within six months of the 

determination of a violation. 

3. Based on any findings, New Jersey 

will make a judgment on whether the 

violation was caused by an exceptional 

event or a violation of an existing rule 

or permit. The State will rely on one or 

more of the following contingency 

measures for any other violation: 

—Onroad Vehicle Fleet Turnover 

—Nonroad Vehicle and Equipment Fleet 

Turnover 

—Low Sulfur Fuel Rule N.J.A.C. 7:27– 

9 (prior to July 2016) 

—Diesel Retrofit Program, Diesel 

Inspection and Maintenance Program, 

N.J.A.C. 7:27–14 and 32 

4. If necessary, New Jersey will 

evaluate the feasibility and applicability 

of additional measures, how they relate 

to the cause and location of the 

violation, and if these additional 

measures would correct the violation. 

These may include: 

—New control measures that have been 

adopted for other purposes 

—Residential wood burning strategies 

—Fugitive dust reductions at stationary 

sources 

—Lower particulate limits for No. 6 fuel 

oil-fired boilers 

—Lower particulate limits for stationary 

diesel engines 

—Working with the local metropolitan 

planning agencies to implement 

transportation control measures 

NJDEP will perform this evaluation 

within six months of the determination 

of a violation. If it is determined that a 

new rule is required or appropriate to 

correct a violation of the NAAQS, 

NJDEP will propose a new rule within 

18 month, and take final action within 

30 months, of the determination of a 

violation. 

New Jersey is relying on existing 

measures, which are already 

implemented, or have been adopted 

with future implementation dates, to 

promptly correct any violation of the 

NAAQS. The state has also included a 

commitment to further evaluate 

additional measures, if necessary and 

appropriate. EPA proposes to find that 

the New Jersey maintenance plan 

includes appropriate contingency 

measures to promptly correct any 

violation of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. 

Maintenance Plan Conclusion 

For all of the reasons discussed above, 

EPA is proposing to approve New 

Jersey’s 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 maintenance plan for the NNJ and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38669 

SNJ areas as meeting the requirements 

of section 175A of the CAA. 

VII. What is EPA’s analysis of New 

Jersey’s proposed NOX and PM2.5 motor 

vehicle emission budgets? 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects, such as the construction of 

new highways, must ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., 

be consistent with) the part of the state’s 

air quality plan that addresses pollution 

from cars and trucks. Conformity to the 

SIP means that transportation activities 

will not cause new air quality 

violations, worsen existing violations, or 

delay timely attainment of the NAAQS 

or any interim milestones. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new projects that would expand 

the capacity of roadways cannot go 

forward. Regulations at 40 CFR Part 93 

set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of such 

transportation activities to a SIP. The 

regional emissions analysis is one, but 

not the only, requirement for 

implementing transportation 

conformity. Transportation conformity 

is a requirement for nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs and maintenance plans for 

nonattainment areas. These control 

strategy SIPs (including RFP and 

attainment demonstrations) and 

maintenance plans create motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs or budgets) 

for criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR Part 93, an 

MVEB must be established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. A state 

may adopt MVEBs for other years as 

well. The MVEB is the portion of the 

total allowable emissions in the 

maintenance demonstration that is 

allocated to highway and transit vehicle 

use and emissions. The MVEB serves as 

a ceiling on emissions from an area’s 

planned transportation system. The 

MVEB concept is further explained in 

the preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 

62188). The preamble also describes 

how to establish the MVEB in the SIP 

and how to revise the MVEB. 

New Jersey has developed MVEBs for 

both the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment 

areas. The budgets are being established 

for both the 1997 annual and 2006 daily 

PM2.5 standards. New Jersey determined 

that budgets based on annual emissions 

of direct PM2.5 and NOX, a precursor, are 

appropriate for the 2006 daily standard 

because exceedences of the standard 

were not isolated to one particular 

season; therefore, the budgets 

established by this maintenance plan 

will be used by transportation agencies 

to meet conformity requirements for 

both the annual and daily standards. 

New Jersey developed these MVEBs, 

as required, for the last year of its 

maintenance plan, 2025, and an 

additional year, 2009, for the purpose of 

establishing budgets for the near-term 

based on EPA’s MOVES model. 

Previously established and approved 

MVEBs had been based on MOBILE6.2. 

The 2009 MVEB was developed 

without an accompanying full emissions 

inventory. EPA proposes to approve this 

approach that is consistent with 

attainment and maintenance of both the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards because 

of our earlier determinations that both 

the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE 

nonattainment areas had attained the 

standards based on monitored air 

quality that included the year 2009 (see 

section II.A.). 

The MVEBs for 2025 reflect the total 

on-road emissions for 2025, plus an 

allocation from the available NOX and 

PM2.5 safety margins. Under 40 CFR 

93.101, the term ‘‘safety margin’’ is the 

difference between the attainment level 

(from all sources) and the projected 

level of emissions (from all sources) in 

the maintenance plan. The safety 

margin can be allocated to the 

transportation sector; however, the total 

emissions must remain below the 

attainment level. New Jersey chose to 

add 8% of the available safety margin to 

both the PM2.5 and NOX budgets for 

2025 for both the NNJ and SNJ 

nonattainment areas. The NOX and 

PM2.5 MVEBs and safety margin 

allocations were developed in 

consultation with the transportation 

partners and were added to 

accommodate expected future 

improvements to MOVES model inputs 

and methodologies. 

In the submittal, the State has also 

established ‘‘sub-area budgets’’ for the 

two metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO) within the NNJ 

nonattainment area: the North Jersey 

Transportation Planning Authority 

(NJTPA) and the Delaware Valley 

Regional Planning Commission 

(DVRPC). These sub-area budgets allow 

each MPO to work independently to 

demonstrate conformity by meeting its 

own PM2.5 and NOX budgets. Each MPO 

must still verify, however, that the other 

MPO currently has a conforming long 

range transportation plan and 

transportation improvement program 

(TIP) prior to making a new plan/TIP 

conformity determination. The MVEBs 

for both the NNJ and SNJ areas are 

defined in Tables 11 (A thru D) below. 

TABLE 11A—2009 PM2.5 AND NOX

MVEBS FOR NNJ FOR BOTH THE

1997 ANNUAL AND 2006 DAILY

PM2.5 NAAQS 

[Tons/year] 

MPO/Subarea Direct 

PM2.5 NOX

NJTPA ...................... 2,736 67,272 

DVRPC (Mercer 

County) .................. 224 5,835 

TABLE 11B—2025 PM2.5 AND NOX

MVEBS FOR NNJ FOR BOTH THE

1997 ANNUAL AND 2006 DAILY

PM2.5 NAAQS 

[Tons/year] 

MPO/Subarea Direct 

PM2.5 NOX

NJTPA ...................... 1,509 25,437 

DVRPC (Mercer 

County) .................. 119 2,551 

TABLE 11C—2009 PM2.5 AND NOX

MVEBS FOR SNJ FOR BOTH THE

1997 ANNUAL AND 2006 DAILY

PM2.5 NAAQS 

[Tons/year] 

MPO Direct 

PM2.5 NOX

DVRPC (Burlington, 

Camden, and 

Gloucester Counties) ....................... 680 18,254 

TABLE 11D—2025 PM2.5 AND NOX

MVEBS FOR SNJ FOR BOTH THE

1997 ANNUAL AND 2006 DAILY

PM2.5 NAAQS 

[Tons/year] 

MPO Direct 

PM2.5 NOX

DVRPC (Burlington, 

Camden, and 

Gloucester Counties) ....................... 363 8,003 

As mentioned above, New Jersey has 

chosen to allocate a portion of the 

available safety margin to the NOX and 

PM2.5 MVEBs for 2025. Details of this 

allocation are shown in Tables 12 (A 

thru D) below. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38670 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 12A—DIRECT PM2.5 MVEB SAFETY MARGIN ALLOCATION FOR NNJ 

[Tons/year] 

MPO/Subarea 

On-Road 

inventory 

for 2025 

Total 

reduction 

from all 

sources, 

2007 to 

2025 

Safety 

margin 

(8% of 

total 

reduction) 

2025 

MVEB 

NJTPA .............................................................................................................................................. 1,128 4,766 381 1,509 

DVRPC (Mercer County) ................................................................................................................. 90 358 29 119 

TABLE 12B—NOX MVEB SAFETY MARGIN ALLOCATION FOR NNJ 

[Tons/year] 

MPO/Subarea 

On-Road 

inventory 

for 2025 

Total 

reduction 

from all 

sources, 

2007 to 

2025 

Safety 

margin 

(8% of 

total 

reduction) 

2025 

MVEB 

NJTPA .............................................................................................................................................. 18,626 85,142 6,811 25,437 

DVRPC (Mercer County) ................................................................................................................. 1,920 7,881 630 2,551 

TABLE 12C—DIRECT PM2.5 MVEB SAFETY MARGIN ALLOCATION FOR SNJ 

[Tons/year] 

MPO/Subarea 

On-Road 

inventory 

for 2025 

Total 

reduction 

from all 

sources, 

2007 to 

2025 

Safety 

margin 

(8% of 

total 

reduction) 

2025 

MVEB 

DVRPC (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties) ............................................................... 278 1,056 85 363 

TABLE 12D—NOX MVEB SAFETY MARGIN ALLOCATION FOR SNJ 

[Tons/year] 

MPO/Subarea 

On-Road 

inventory 

for 2025 

Total 

reduction 

from all 

sources, 

2007 to 

2025 

Safety 

margin 

(8% of 

total 

reduction) 

2025 

MVEB 

DVRPC (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties) ............................................................... 6,095 23,848 1,908 8,003 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2009 

and 2025 MVEBs for NOX and PM2.5 for 

NNJ and SNJ because EPA has 

determined that the areas will maintain 

both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hr 

PM2.5 NAAQS with on-road vehicle 

emissions capped at the levels set by the 

budgets. EPA’s review thus far indicates 

that the budgets meet the adequacy 

criteria set forth by 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), 

as follows: 

(i) The submitted control strategy 

implementation plan revision or 

maintenance plan was endorsed by the 

Governor (or his or her designee) and 

was subject to a State public hearing: 

The SIP revision was submitted to EPA 

by the Commissioner of the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, who is the Governor’s 

designee. 

(ii) Before the control strategy 

implementation plan or maintenance 

plan was submitted to EPA, 

consultation among Federal, State, and 

local agencies occurred; full 

implementation plan documentation 

was provided to EPA; and EPA’s stated 

concerns, if any, were addressed: New 

Jersey conducted an interagency 

consultation process involving EPA and 

USDOT, the New Jersey Department of 

Transportation and affected MPOs. All 

comments and concerns were addressed 

prior to the final submittal. 

(iii) The motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s) is clearly identified and 

precisely quantified: The MVEB was 

clearly identified and quantified and is 

reiterated here in Tables 11A–11D. 

(iv) The motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s), when considered together 

with all other emissions sources, is 

consistent with applicable requirements 

for maintenance: Both the 2009 and 

2025 MVEB are less than the on-road 

mobile source inventory for 2007 that 

was shown to be consistent with 

attainment and maintenance of the 

standards. In addition, the 2009 budgets 

are for a year in which EPA has 

determined that New Jersey attained the 

applicable air quality standards and are 

therefore consistent with maintenance 

of the respective standards. 

(v) The motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s) is consistent with and clearly 

related to the emissions inventory and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38671 

the control measures in the submitted 

control strategy implementation plan 

revision or maintenance plan: The 

MVEB were developed from the on-road 

mobile source inventories, including all 

applicable state and Federal control 

measures. Inputs related to inspection 

and maintenance and fuels are 

consistent with New Jersey’s Federallyapproved control programs. 

(vi) Revisions to previously submitted 

control strategy implementation plans 

or maintenance plans explain and 

document any changes to previously 

submitted budgets and control 

measures; impacts on point and area 

source emissions; any changes to 

established safety margins (see § 93.101 

for definition); and reasons for the 

changes (including the basis for any 

changes related to emission factors or 

estimates of vehicle miles traveled): The 

submitted maintenance plan establishes 

new 2009 and 2025 budgets to ensure 

continued maintenance of the 

standards; therefore, this in not 

applicable. 

Once the budgets are approved or 

found adequate (whichever is 

completed first), they must be used for 

future conformity determinations. 

VIII. What is the status of EPA’s 

adequacy determination for the 

proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 

2009 and 2025 for Northern and 

Southern New Jersey? 

When reviewing submitted ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEBs, EPA may 

affirmatively find the MVEB contained 

therein adequate for use in determining 

transportation conformity. Once EPA 

affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB 

is adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes, that MVEB must 

be used by state and Federal agencies in 

determining whether proposed 

transportation projects conform to the 

SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 

CAA. 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining adequacy of a MVEB are set 

out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and our 

review of New Jersey’s submission in 

the context of these criteria was 

presented in section VII. The process for 

determining adequacy consists of three 

basic steps: Public notification of a SIP 

submission, a public comment period, 

and EPA’s adequacy determination. 

This process for determining the 

adequacy of submitted MVEBs for 

transportation conformity purposes was 

initially outlined in EPA’s May 14, 

1999, guidance, ‘‘Conformity Guidance 

on Implementation of March 2, 1999, 

Conformity Court Decision.’’ EPA 

adopted regulations to codify the 

adequacy process in the Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments for the 

‘‘New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards and 

Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing 

Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’ 

on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). 

Additional information on the adequacy 

process for transportation conformity 

purposes is available in the proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments: 

Response to Court Decision and 

Additional Rule Changes,’’ 68 FR 38974, 

38984 (June 30, 2003). 

As discussed earlier, New Jersey’s 

maintenance plan submission includes 

NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the NNJ and 

SNJ maintenance areas for 2009 and 

2025. EPA reviewed the NOX and PM2.5

MVEBs through the adequacy process. 

The New Jersey SIP submission, 

including the NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs, 

was open for public comment on EPA’s 

adequacy Web site on September 12, 

2012, found at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/stateresources/transconf/ 

currsips.htm. The public comment 

period closed on October 12, 2012. EPA 

did not receive any comments on the 

adequacy of the MVEBs, nor did EPA 

receive any requests for the SIP 

submittal. 

EPA intends to make its 

determination on the adequacy of the 

2009 and 2025 MVEBs for NNJ and SNJ 

for transportation conformity purposes 

in the near future by completing the 

adequacy process that was started on 

September 12, 2012. After EPA finds the 

MVEBs adequate or approves them, the 

new MVEBs for NOX and PM2.5 must be 

used for future transportation 

conformity determinations. 

IX. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve New 

Jersey’s request for redesignating the 

NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to 

attainment, because the State has 

demonstrated compliance with the 

requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for 

redesignation. EPA has evaluated New 

Jersey’s redesignation request and 

determined that it meets the 

redesignation criteria set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes 

that the monitoring data demonstrate 

that the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5

nonattainment areas has attained the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and will continue to attain the 

standard. Final approval of this 

redesignation request would change the 

designation of the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5

nonattainment areas from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 annual and the 2006 PM2.5

24-hour NAAQS. EPA is also proposing 

to approve the maintenance plan for the 

NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

as a revision to the New Jersey SIP. EPA 

is also proposing to approve the 2007 

NH3, VOC, NOX, direct PM2.5 and SO2

emissions inventories as meeting the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2009 and 2025 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for PM2.5 and 

NOX. EPA is soliciting public comments 

on the issues discussed in this 

document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38672 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: June 12, 2013. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15147 Filed 6–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R06–OW–2011–0712; FRL–9826–5] 

Ocean Dumping; Sabine-Neches 

Waterway (SNWW) Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Site Designation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

designate four new Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Site(s) (ODMDS) 

located offshore of Texas for the 

disposal of dredged material from the 

Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW), 

pursuant to the Marine Protection, 

Research and Sanctuaries Act, as 

amended (MPRSA). The new sites are 

needed for the disposal of additional 

dredged material associated with the 

SNWW Channel Improvement Project, 

which includes an extension of the 

Entrance Channel into the Gulf of 

Mexico. Final action by EPA on this 

proposal would authorize the disposal 

of the additional dredged materials at 

the additional ocean disposal sites. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received on or before August 

12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OW–2011–0712, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov; follow the 

online instruction for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Dr. Jessica Franks at 

franks.jessica@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Dr. Jessica Franks, Marine and 

Coastal Section (6WQ–EC) at fax 

number 214–665–6689. 

• Mail: Dr. Jessica Franks, Marine and 

Coastal Section (6WQ–EC), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: (6WQ–EC), 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OW–2011–0712. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Marine and Coastal Section (6WQ– 

EC), Environmental Protection Agency, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733. The file will be 

made available by appointment for 

public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA 

Review Room between the hours of 8:30 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for 

legal holidays. Contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph below. If possible, 

please make the appointment at least 

two working days in advance of your 

visit. There will be a 15 cent per page 

fee for making photocopies of 

documents. On the day of the visit, 

please check in at the EPA Region 6 

reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jessica Franks, Ph.D., Marine and 

Coastal Section (6WQ–EC), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–8335, fax number (214) 665– 

6689; email address 

franks.jessica@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

A. Potentially Affected Entities 

B. Background 

C. Disposal Volume Limit 

D. Site Management and Monitoring Plan 

E. Ocean Dumping Site Designation Criteria 

General Selection Criteria 

Specific Selection Criteria 

F. Regulatory Requirements 

1. National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

2. Endangered Species Act Consultation 

3. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act of 1996 

4. Coastal Zone Management Act 

5. Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 

G. Administrative Review 

1. Executive Order 12886 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

4. Unfunded Mandates 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS