### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 DATE: August 15, 2012 SUBJECT: Technical Support Document Regarding Monitoring Data

– Delaware , New

Jersey, and Pennsylvania; Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24
- Hour Fine Particulate Standard for the Philadelphi a - Wilmington Nonattainment Area FROM: Emlyn Vélez
- Rosa, Environmental Engineer /s/

Office of Air Program Planning Loretta H yden, Envir onmental Engineer /s/ Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis TO: File THRU: Donna Mastro, Acting Associate Director /s/

Office of Air Program Planning This Technical Sup port Document (TSD) provides a technical review of the air quality monitoring data used to support the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposed determination that the Philadelphia
- Wilmington, Pennsylvania
- New Jersey
- Delaware area (hereafter “the Philadelphia Area” or “the Are a” ) has attained the 2006 24
- hour fine particulate ( PM 2.5 

### ) N ational A mbient A ir Q uality S tandard (NAAQS) . I . BACKGROUND On July 16, 1997 , EPA established an annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 

### ) ( hereafter referred to as “the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS”), based on a 3
- year average of annual mean PM 2.5 

### concentrations (62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997). At that time, EPA also established a 24
- hour standard of 65 μg/m 3 

### (hereafter referred to as “the 1997 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS”). See 4 0 CFR 50.7. The 1997 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS were based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to particulate matter. The process for designating areas following promulgation of a n ew or revised NAAQS is contained in 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published its air quality designations and classifications for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data for calendar ye ars 2001
- 2003 . These designations, effective on

### 2

April 5, 2005, included the Philadelphia Area as a nonattainment area for the 1997 annual and 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. The Philadelphia Area is comprised of the New Castle County in Delaware; Burlington, Camden , and Gloucester Counties in New Jersey; and Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania. See 40 CFR 81.339 (Pennsylvania), 40 CFR 81.331 (New Jersey), and 40 CFR 81.308 (Del a ware). On September 21, 2006, EPA retained the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ( μg/m 3 

### ) ( hereby “the 2006 annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS”) based on a 3
- year average of annual mean PM 2.5 

### concentrations, and promulgated a new 24
- hour standard of 35 μg/m 3 

### based on a 3
- year average of the 98th percentile of 24
- hour concentrations (71 FR 61144 , October 17, 2006 ). The revised 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### standards (hereafter “the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS”) became effective on December 18, 2006. See 40 CFR 50.13. The more stringent 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS is based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with short
- term exposures to PM 2.5 

### at this level. Many petitioners challenged aspects of EPA's 2006 revisions to the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. See American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA , 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). As a result of this challenge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded the 2 006 annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS to EPA for further proceedings. The 2006 24
- hour primary and secondary PM 2.5 

### NAAQS were not affected by the remand and remain in effect . On November 13, 2009 , EPA p ublished desi gnations for the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS (74 FR 58688 ) , which became effective on December 14, 2009. In that action, EPA designated t he Philadelphia Area as nonattainment for the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. II. EPA REQUIREMENTS A. PM 2.5 

### Attainment Requirements O n March 29, 2007, EPA issued a detailed implementation rule , codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z , to assist states and tribes with the development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to demonstrate attainment with the 1997 annual and 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS ( the “2007 PM 2.5 

### Implementation Rule”) (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) . EPA believes that the overall framework and policy approach of the 2007 PM 2.5 

### Implementation Rule provides effective and appropriate guidance on the EPA’s interpretation of the general statutory requirements that states sho uld address in their SIPs , and that such interpretation is relevant to the statutory requirements for the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS . However, in light of new information that has become available since the issuance of the 2007 PM 2.5 

### Implementation Rule, EP A published on March 2, 2012, the memorandum “Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24
- Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

### ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS)” (the “2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### Memorandum”) . 1 

### This memorandum provides additional guidance to assist states with development of their SIPs for the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.
1 EPA’s implementation guidance for the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pdfs/20120302_implement_guidance_24
- hr_pm2.5_naaqs.pdf

### 3

In general, area s violating the NAAQS should meet the basic CAA requirements set forth in section 172. T h e 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### nonattainment designations triggered the CAA’s requirements under section 172(c), which require s the submission of an attainment plan for each designated nonattainment area. The 2007 PM 2.5 

### Implementation Rule specifies that states must submit attainment p lans for their nonattainment areas to EPA by no later than three years from th e effective date of designation. A ttainment plans for the 2006 24
- hour standard must be submitted by December 14, 2012. T he 2007 PM 2.5 

### Implementation Rule also outlines the SIP requirements for the attainment plan, which include among other things, the submission of an attainment demonstration showing the air quality improvements expected to result from national and local control measures, an analysis of reasonably available con trol measures (RACM), including all reasonably available control technology (RACT), reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures. In the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### Memorandum, EPA recommends that states follow a similar approach for each one of these SIP requirements when demonstrating attainment of the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. Under section 172(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, an area's attainment date would be the date by which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date such ar ea was designated nonattainment, except that the Administrator may extend the attainment date to the extent the Administrator dete rmines appropriate, for a period no greater than 10 years from the date of designation as nonattainment. Because the designation of nonattainment areas for the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS became effective on December 14, 2009, the presumptive five
- year attai nment date for many areas would be no later than December 14, 2014. The 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS relies on evaluating three full calendar years of air quality data to calculate the 24
- hour design value for the area. To determine attainment, the EPA commo nly uses the three most recent calendar years of complete air quality data that are available for the nonattainment area . B . Monitoring Network An adequate monitoring network for PM 2.5 

### should satisfy the specific minimum criteria for establishing state and local air monitoring stations for PM 2.5 

### data collection, as described in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.7. Additionally , the monitoring network in place should be consistent with the most recent annual monitoring network plan submitted by the State or local agency and approved by EPA. See 40 CFR 58.10. C . Monitoring Data Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50. 13 (c) , the 2006 24
- hour primary and secondary PM 2.5 

### NAAQS are met when the 98 th 

### percentile 24
- hour concentration , as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, a ppendix N, is less than or equal to 3 5.0 ug/m 3 

### . Data handling conventions and computations necessary for determining whether areas have met the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, including requirements for data completeness, are also listed in 40 CFR part 50 , appendix N.

### 4

Specifically, the 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS is met when the “24
- hour standard design value , ” that is, the 3
- year average of annual 98 th 

### percentile 24
- hour average values, recorded at each monitoring site is less t han or equal to 35 μg/m 3


### . The 9 8 th 

### percentile is defined as the daily value out of a year of PM 2.5 

### monitoring data below which 98 percent of all daily values fall. The c omparison of the 24
- hour standard design value (hereafter “the 24
- hour design value”) to the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS shall be based on 3 consecutive, complete years of air quality data. A year meets data completeness requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarter have val id data. However, years shall be considered valid, notwithstanding quarters with less than complete data (even q uarters with less than 11 samples), if the resulting annual 98 th 

### percentile value or resulting 24
- hour standard design value is greater than th e level of the standard. 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 for co mparisons to the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. O nly complete quality
- assured, quality
- controlled, and certified PM 2.5 

### data from Federal Reference Method (FRM), Federal Equivalent Method (FEM), or Approved Regional Method (ARM ) monitors submitted to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) can be used in the 24
- hour design value calculations f or comparing to the 2006 2 4
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS . Additionally, the PM 2.5 

### data must be collected from monitoring sites that are eligible for making comparisons with the 24
- hour form of the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, as set forth in 40 CFR 58.30. D. Determination of Attainment Upon a determination by EPA that an area designated nonattainment for the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### N AAQS has attained the standard, the requirements for such area to submit atta inment dem onstrations and associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### standard shall be sus pended until such time as: the area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the re quirements no longer apply; or EPA determines that the area has violated the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS , at which time the area is again required to submit such plans. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). A determination of attainment is not equivalent to a redesignation , and the state must still meet the statutory requirements for redesignation in order to be redesignated to attainment. Furthermore, a determination of attainment does not shield an area from other required actions such as New Source Review (NSR), conform ity and emission inventory requirements, and provisions to address pollution transport, which would require emission reductions at sources or other types of emission activities contributing significantly to nonattainment in other areas or states, or interf ering with maintenance in those areas. Determinations as to whether individual areas have attained the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### standard , and thus qualify for the application of a determination of attainment , are being made in the context of rulemakings for i ndividual areas. T his determination of attainment of the Philadelphia Area for the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS is not linked to any particular attainment deadline, and

### 5

is not necessarily equivalent to a determination that the Area has attained the standard b y its applicable attainment deadline . III. EPA’S EVALUATION OF AI R QUALITY MONITORING DATA A. Monitoring Network EPA previously determined that the PM 2.5 

### monitoring network for the P hiladelphia Area is adequate . EPA found that the number of monitors in the Area meets the minimum regulatory requirements given in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D , section 4.7, and that the monitoring network in place is in accordance with the States’ most recent annual monitoring network plan s approved b y EPA, as required by 40 CFR 58.10. 2 

### During the periods of 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 2011 , the Philadelphi a Area had in place a total of 1 6 PM 2.5 

### monitoring sites, whose data was eligible for comparison to the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. B. Air Quality Monitoring Data In order to determine that the Philadelphia Area attained the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### standard , quality
- assured, quality
- controlled and state certified ambient air monitoring data for the monitoring period s of 200 8
- 20 10 and 2009
- 2011 f or the Philadelphia Area was reviewed. Preliminary PM 2.5 

### data for 2012, which is not yet quality
- assured and quality
- controlled, was also reviewed. The PM 2.5 

### monitoring data was measured by FRM, FEM, or ARM monitors, in accordance with 40 CFR part 50 , ap pendix N. The monitoring data for periods 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 2011 for the Philadelphia A rea is provided in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively . Preliminary 2012 monitoring data is provided in Table 3 . See Appendix A
- 1 and A
- 2 of this document for AQS Preliminary Design Value Report s 

### (AMP480) . The P M 2.5 

### 98 th 

### percentile values and 24
- hour design values for the Philadelphia Area can also be found at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html .

2 Separate ambient monitoring network plans are submitted annually to EPA by each of the States in the 24
- hour PM 2.5 Philadelphia A rea. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s 2011 annual ambient monitoring network plan was approved by EPA in a December 6, 2011 letter from Shawn M. Ga rvin, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III, to Michael L. Kran cer, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ( PADEP). The State of Delaware’ s 2011 annual ambient monitoring network plan was approved by EPA in a December 6, 2011 letter from Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator , EPA Regio n III, to Collin P. O’Mara, Secretary of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). The State of New Jersey’s 2011 annual ambient monitoring network plan was approved by EPA in an October 27, 2011 letter from John Fili ppelli, Acting Director of the Division of Environmen tal Planning and Protection, EPA Region II, to Jane Kozinski, Assistant Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environment Protection (NJDEP).

### 6

Table 1. Philadelphia Area’s 2008 - 2010 PM 2.5 

### Air Quality Data (in μg/m 3 

### ) State County AQS S ite ID 98 th 

### Percentile Value 2 

### 2008 - 2010 24 - hour Design Value Completeness

Status 3 

### 2008 2009 2010 Delaware New Castle 10
- 003
- 1003 31.6 * 23.2 24.3 26 Max quarter Delaware New Castle 10
- 003
- 1007 28.1 20.6 * 27.5 25 Max quarter Delaware New Castle 10
- 003
- 1012 28.6 23.4 24.9 * 26 Max quarter Delaware New Castle 10
- 003
- 2004 34.8 28.4 27.9 30 C omplete New Jersey Camden 34
- 007
- 0003 1 

### 36.6
- - 37 Inc omplete New Jersey Camden 34
- 007
- 1007 28.0 25.0 23.4 25 C omplete New Jersey Gloucester 34
- 015
- 0004 23.9 21.9 21.6 * 22 Max Q uarter Pennsylvania Bucks 42
- 017
- 0012 30.9 * 25.8 28.3 28 Collocated Pennsylvania Chester 42
- 029
- 0100 32.0 * 31.1 35.1 33 Inc omplete Pennsylvania Delaware 42
- 045
- 0002 28.6 27.9 32.8 30 C omplete Pennsylvania Montgomery 42
- 091
- 0013 23.7 27.2 25.9 26 C omplete Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0004 34.5 25.9 27.6 29 C omplete Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0024 30.5 25.5 25.2 27 C omplete Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0047 32.8 27.2 27.6 29 C omplete Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0055 34.5 28.6 28.9 31 C omplete Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0057 32.8 28.3 27.9 30 C omplete 1 The Camden monitor at site 34
- 007
- 0003 was shut down September 2008. 2 Annual 98 th percentile values not meeting the completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk (*). The dash (
- ) indicates that no data was collected during this time. 3 This column in dicates whether the monitoring data from the monitor meet the comp leteness requirement (Complete) or not (Incomplete) for each quarter of the 3
- year period. “Max quarter” denote s that the monitor has incomplete data, but it passed the maximum quarter subs titution test . “Collocated” indicates that the collocated data was substituted for missing data. Guidance on EPA’s substitution tests can be found in EPA’s April 1999 document “Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS.”


### Table 2 . Philadelphia Area ’s 2009 - 2011 PM 2.5 

### Air Quality Data (in μg/m 3 

### ) State County AQS S ite ID 98 th 

### Percentile Value 1 

### 2009 - 2011 24 - hour Design Value Completeness

Status 2 

### 20 09 20 10 2011 Delaware New Castle 10
- 003
- 1003 23.2 24.3 22.4 * 23 Max quarter Delaware New Castle 10
- 003
- 1007 20.6 * 27.5 21.0 23 Max quarter Delaware New Castle 10
- 003
- 1012 23.4 24.9 22.2 * 24 Max quarter Delaware New Castle 10
- 003
- 2004 28.4 27.9 24.7 27 C omplete New Jersey Camden 34
- 007
- 1007 25.0 23.4 24.3 24 Complete New Jersey Gloucester 34
- 015
- 0004 21.9 21.6 * 22.2 22 Max quarter

### 7

Pennsylvania Bucks 42
- 017
- 0012 25.8 28.3 29.7 28 C omplete Pennsylvania Chester 42
- 029
- 0100 31.1 35.1 33.8 * 33 Inc omplete Pennsylvania Delaware 42
- 045
- 0002 27.9 32.8 28.6 30 C omplete Pennsylvania Montgomery 42
- 091
- 0013 27.2 25.9 27.6 27 Complete Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0004 25.9 27.6 2 9 . 6 28 C omplete Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0024 25.5 25.2
- 25 Inc omplete Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0047 27.2 27.6 27.5 27 C omplete Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0055 28.6 28.9 30.6 29 C omplete Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0057 28.3 27.9 30.5 29 C omplete Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 1002
- - 2 7 . 5 27 Inc omplete 1 Annual 98 th percentile values not meeting the completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk (*). The dash (
- ) indicates that no data was collected during this time. 2 This column indicates whether the monitoring data from the monitor meet the comp leteness requi rement (Complete) or not (Incomplete) for each quarter of the 3
- year period. “Max quarter” denote s that the monitor has incomplete data, but it has passed the maximum quarter substitution test . Guidance on EPA’s substitution tests can be found in EPA’s April 1999 document “Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS.” 

### Table 3. Philadelphia Area’s Preliminary 2012 PM 2.5 

### Air Quality Data (in μg/m 3 

### ) State County AQS S ite ID 2012 98 th 

### Percentile Value 1 

### Delaware New Castle 10
- 003
- 1003 20.2 Delaware New Castle 10
- 003
- 1007 22.7 Delaware New Castle 10
- 003
- 1012 22.0 Delaware New Castle 10
- 003
- 2004 23.9 New Jersey Camden 34
- 007
- 1007 17.5 New Jersey Gloucester 34
- 015
- 0004 21.8 Pennsylvania Bucks 42
- 017
- 0012 34.9 Pennsylvania Chester 42
- 029
- 0100 21.0 Pennsylvania Delaware 42
- 045
- 0002 23.9 Pennsylvania Montgomery 42
- 091
- 0013 21.1 Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0004 27.9 Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0047 20.0 Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0055 19.6 Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 0057 20.6 Pennsylvania Philadelphia 42
- 101
- 1002 23.4 1 Monitoring data available to date correspond to the first quarter of 2012, and have not been quality
- assured, quality
- controlled, or certified. 

### EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for PM 2.5 

### for monitoring periods 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 2011 , consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50 . The 24
- hour design value determined for the Philadelphia Area is the highest 3
- year average of the annual

### 8

98 th 

### percentile measured at all the monitors in the Area during this time, which meets the criteria to be used for comparison to the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. D uring 2008
- 2010 , t he monitor in g site 34
- 007
- 0003 in the Camden County was the highest reading monit or. However, the 24
- hour design value s at this site reflect incomplete data during most of the 2008
- 2010 monitoring period due to the monitor’s shutdown in September 2008 ( the monitor only collected data for 3 quarters out of 12) . The last valid 24
- hour design value at the site 34
- 007
- 0003 was 35 μg/m 3 

### in 2006
- 2008, prior to its shut down. EPA has addressed the missing data during 2008
- 2010 of monitoring site 34
- 007
- 0003 ( Camden monitor) to determine a 24
- hour design value had the monitor be en operated during this time. For 2008
- 2010, t he statistical procedure applied results in an attaining 24
- hour design value for the Camden monitor of 28 g/m 3 

### , which is below the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NA AQS of 35 μg/m 3


### . ( See section C
- Data Completeness Issues of this document . ) The remaining monitors in the Philadelphia area showed concentrations below the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS during the 2008
- 2010 monitoring period. For the 2009
- 2011 period, all monitors measured concen trations averaging below the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS of 35 ug/m 3


### . The 24
- hour design value for 2009
- 2011 for the Philadelphia Area is 3 3 ug/m 3 

### based on monitoring data collected at the Chester County monitor (New Garden monitor) , site 42
- 029
- 0100 . Because this monitor also shows incomplete monitoring data, EPA has computed a diagnostic 24
- hour design value for the New Garden monitor after addressing the missing data. T he statistical procedure applied results in an attaining 2009
- 2011 diagnostic 24
- hour design value for the Camden monitor of 33 g/m 3 

### , which is below the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS of 35 μg/m 3


### . Therefore, ambient air monitoring data collected during 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 2011 in the Philadelphia Area indicates that the Area has attained th e 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. Furthermore, preliminary 2012 PM 2.5 

### data available to date, which has not yet been quality
- assured or certified, show s that the 98 th 

### percentile values for the 1 st 

### quarter of 2012 are below the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS . C . Data Completeness Issues F or the 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 2011 periods , several monitors in the Philadelphia Area had incomplete 24
- hour design values, as indicated in the Comp leteness Status columns of Table 1 and Table 2. In order to determine whether these monitors would have attained the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQ S, EPA has addressed missing data from monitors not meeting the completeness requirement in accordance 40 CFR part 50 appendix N , by applying one of three different procedures : collocated substitution test, maximum quarter substitution test (“maximum quarter test”), and EPA’s statistical procedure. This section discusses the data completeness issues for the PM 2.5 

### monitors in the Philadelphia Area and how EPA has addressed the missing data during 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 2011 monitoring periods. 1 . Monitoring Sites Shutdowns and Startups Two monitors in the Philadelphia A rea did not collect sufficien t data during monitoring period 2009
- 2011. On January 1, 2011, the City of Philadelphia Air Management Services (AMS)

### 9

began operating an NCore monitoring station , 42
- 101
- 1002 . The NCore station is a multi
pollutant air monitoring station where the following is measured: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone , nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ), PM 2.5 

### , course particulate matter (PM 10 

### ), and meteorological data. To alleviate the strain on resources caused by operating the NCore monitoring station, AMS discontinued their PM 2.5 

### monitoring at site 42
- 101
- 0024 on January 1, 2011. The last valid 24
- hour design value of monitoring site 42
- 101
- 0024 was 27 ug/m 3 

### during 2008
- 2010. EPA approved these changes to the monitoring network in the AMS 2010 Annual N etwork Plan . The abovementioned monitoring site 34
- 007
- 0003 (Camden monitor) in Camden County, New Jersey has an incomplete 24
- hour design value for 2008
- 2010, since the monitor was shutdown permanently by New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in September 2008. This was an unplanned s hutdown due to vandal ism at the site, but was reporte d to and approved by EPA. A new monitoring site , 34
- 007
- 0002, was installed in Camden County as a replacement on April 11, 2012. 2 . Data Substitution Test s S everal monitors in the Philadelphia Area were not meeting the completeness requir ement for one or more year during 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 2011 monitoring periods. EPA applied the maximum quarter data substitution test ( maximum quarter test ) to each of these monitors, as described in the EPA’s April 1999 guidance document “Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS . ” In the maximum quarter test , maximum recorded values are substituted for the missing data, and the resulting 24
- ho ur design value is compared to the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS . A monitor with incomplete data passes the test if the 24
- hour design value with maximum values substituted meets the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. Specifically, the maximum quarter test requires re placing the missing data with the maximum concentration recorded at the site during the same quarter over the three
- year period in question, provided that the following criteria are met. The site must have valid data for at least 50 percent of the schedul ed number of samples for each quarter for all three years, and the emissions and meteorology for the quarters to be substituted must be comparable to the emissions and meteorology for the quarters in question. The “Completeness Status” columns of Table 1 and Table 2 indicate which incomplete monitors passed the maximum quarter test, and therefore attain the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. The collocated substitution test was applied to the incomplete primary monitor at site 42
- 017
- 0012 to address missing data i n 2008. In the collocated substitution test, data from a collocated monitor are substituted for the missing data of the primary monitor at the site. Data from a collocated monitor for the same year and quarter as the missing data may be used to replace the missing PM 2.5 

### values. If collocated data do not correspond to the same day as the scheduled sampling, then collocated data from the nearest day (i.e. within a day or two) may be used to replace the missing data. The emissions and meteorology for the substituted day must be comparative to emissions and meteorology for the missing day. The collocated monitor must be a FRM or FEM, or must be a collocated quality
- assured monitor. In order to determine if the monitor meets the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### standard, the 24
- hour design value computed with the

### 10

substituted 98 th 

### percentiles should remain under the standard. This is the case for monitoring site 42
- 017
- 0012. The values from the collocated monitor at site 42
- 017
- 0012 are reflected in the 98% per centile value for 2008 in Table 1 . For more information on this substitution techniques, s ee EPA’s April 1999 “Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS , ” available at http: //www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdf . 3 . Data Completeness for Incomplete Monitors in the Philadelphia Area during 2008 - 2010 and 2009 - 2011 The Philadelphia Area ha s t wo additional monitor ing s ites without a valid attaining 24
- hour design value for 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 2011 monitoring periods due to incomplete data . M onitoring site 42
- 029
- 0100 (New Garden monitor ) in Chester County, Pennsylvania ha s an incomplete 24
- hour design value for both monitoring periods 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 201 1 , due to various mechanical issues in 2008 and power failures in 2011 . Monitoring site 34
- 007
- 0003 (Camden monitor), had an incomplete design value for 2008
- 2010 due to the monitor being shut down in September 2008. EPA addressed the missing data of these two monitors by applying a statistical procedure in order to determine a “diagnostic” 24
- hour design value for the Camden monitor ( site 34
- 007
- 0003 ) for 2008
- 2010 and “diagnostic” 24
- hour design values for the New Garden monitor (site 42
- 029
- 0100) for both 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 2011 periods . EPA’s statistical procedure is described in the following sections. a. Method Description The general concept of the statistical method used is to determine whether an incomplete monitor (target monitor) would have met the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### standard by replacing the missing data of the target monitor with data from another monitor (candidate monitor) located within or in the vicinity of the nonattainment area. The first step of the statistical method is to establish a linear regression relationship between the target monitor and the candidate m onitor, and then to use the linear regression to fill in the missing data for the target monitor in any quarter of the three
- year period that did not satisfy the 75 percent completeness requirements based on actual o bservations. A “diagnostic ” 24
- hour design value for the monitoring period is calculate d with the imputed data and then checked with an additional statistical technique, referred as bootstrapping, to verify if the monitor has attained the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. The diagnostic 24
- hour design value is used to judge whether these locations would likely have monitored attainment of the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS had the monitors collected complete valid data during this time . The candidate monitor is selected based on 3 different aspects : correlation value, quarterly data captured, and site pairing . The correlation value (R 2 

### ) from the linear regression should indicate a “strong” linear relationship of the PM 2.5 

### data from the candidate monitor and the target monitor. Then, the mean of the quarterly data captured (expressed in percentage) , wh ich provides the average data collection rate at each site, should determine that the site has sufficient data during

### 11

the missing period of the target monitor. Additionally, pairing the site data assists in establishing more precise comparisons with fewer observations. T he PM 2.5 

### monitoring network within the Philadelphia A rea has 16 PM 2.5 

### monitoring locations , provid ing an ample number of monitors to compare to the target monitor. The target monitors in the s e analyse s are the New Garden and Camden monitors. The methodology wa s used to appropriately fill in the missing data for these two monitors, to judge whether each monitoring location would likely have monitored attainment of the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS had each monitor collected complete vali d data during this time. For the 2008
- 2010 period, monitoring site 10
- 003
- 1012 (Newark monitor ) in Delaware was selected as the candidate monitor for the New Garden monitor and site 34
- 007
- 1007 ( Camden WTP monitor ) in New Jersey was selected for the Camde n monitor . For the 2009
- 2011 period, monitoring site 10
- 003
- 1003 (Bellefonte monitor) in Delaware was selected as the candidate monitor for the New Garden monitor. b. Eligibility EPA established criteria to assure that the diagnostic 24
- hour design values of the Camden monitor for 2008
- 2010 and the New Garden monitor for 2008
- 2010 and 2 009
- 2011 were robust enough to allow consideration of the results in a weight of evidence decision . EPA established criteria for both the operating per iod of the candidate monitor and for the number of days of samples that the candidate monitor and each of the target monitors have in common. EPA has not established bright lines or specific requirements for determining diagnostic 24
- hour design value s fo r monitors with less than complete data. Operating Time In order to establish a significant relationship between the monitors, the candidate monitor must have operated during the monitoring period with the missing data in the Philadelphia A rea . The candidate monitor is not required to have complete data in all 12 quarters of each 3
- year period, yet should have collected sufficient observations to fill in the missing days of the target monitor, for the target monitor to satisfy the 75 percent complete ness in each quarter. Paired samples Pairs of sample data for the target monitors and candidate monitors from the most recent 20
- quarter period of operation of the target monitor were used. The “period of operation” of the target monitor was based on t he date of the last reported sample from the monitor. The candidate monitor had at least 100 historical sample pairs in common with the target monitor during this period. When there were more than 100 pairs in the 20
- quarter period all available pairs we re used. In addition to the 100 pairs over the 20 quarters, candidate monitors had at least 20 paired days of data in common with the target monitor for each calendar quarter (adding together the number of days in a given calendar quarter [Q1, Q2, Q3, or Q4] across the 20
- quarter period). S everal candidate sites met the eligibility criteria of 100 pairs over the 20
- quarters, and at least 20 paired days of data in common with the target monitors for each calendar quarter.

### 12

c. Method for Determining 24 - h our D esign V alues The following includes a step
- by
- step explanation of the methodology used to determine the diagnostic 24
- hour desi gn values for the target monitors (New Garden and Camden ). Results are discussed in detail in the following section. Step 1

– Organize data and perform linear regression(s) between target monitor and possible candidate monitors. All the available paired data within the period limit ( see the Eligibility section) was used to develop a linear regression to predict target concentrations from candidate concentrations. A regression was performed for each possible pairing that met the criteria utilized for 100 data points and 20 data points pe r calendar quarter (across all years) in the most recent 20 quarters for each candidate monitor in the Philadelphia nonattainment area . Step 2

– Select Candidate site The following steps were used to select the candidate monitor , during each monitoring period : (1) All possible candidate monitors were placed in order of highest corre lation (based on the highest R 2 

### of the linear regression) with the target monitor . (2) Using the regression equation relating concentrations at the target monitor and the candidate monitor, estimates of the 24
- hour average concentrations were made at the target monitor for all missing scheduled days in the initially incomplete quarter, during the most recent three
- year period at the target monitor. Estimates were only made for days on which a concentration is available at the candidate monitor. Estimates were not made for any days in the quarter for which the target monitor had 75 percent or more complete data initially. The estimates were combined with any reported d ata at the target monitor during the recent 3
- year period, and the data capture rates were computed for the originally incomplete quarter. The computation of these data capture rates was based on the assumption that the required sampling frequency for the target monitor was recorded. If the candidate monitor had a lower sampling frequency than the target monitor, some missing scheduled days for the target were not substituted for the regression
- based estimates. When the candidate monitor had a lower samp ling frequency than the target monitor, the target monitor sampling schedule was assumed to be a combination of the target and candidate monitors schedules, weighted by the number of originally present and originally missing scheduled days at the target mo nitor. (3) If after performing the process in step 2, the results produced all 12 quarters at the target monitor having at least 75 percent of scheduled values, the candidate monitor was selected as the candidate for the remaining steps. If the 75 per cent of the scheduled values for the target monitor were not obtained, then step 2 was repeated for the next best correlated site. This process was repeated until the target monitor had 75 percent of its scheduled values. Step 3

– Diagnostic 24
- hour Desi gn Value Computed

### 13

The di agnostic three
- year averaged 24
- hour design values for 2008
- 2010 and 200 9
- 2011 were calculated using the actual observations of the target monitor and the regression
- based estimates of daily concentrations. The diagnostic 24
- hour design values for 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 2011 computed for the New Garden and Camden monitors in the Philadelphia Area were below the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS level of 35.0 ug/m 3


### . Step 4

– Statistical confidence of a 24
- hour design value below the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS In order to show that there is, at most, a 10 percent probability that th e actual 24
- hour design values (had each one of these monitors operated more days) were above the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, further analysis was performed as foll ows: (1) Residuals were calculated from the regression. (2) A bootstrap analysis was performed, repeating the regression
- based substitution in Step 2 but adding to each estimated 24
- hour value that substitutes for a missing scheduled monitored value a plus or minus residual that has been randomly drawn (with replacement) from the pool of regression residuals. This step randomly applies real residuals from the linear regression to the imputed current
- period target values. (3) Repeat (2) for a total of 1000 runs. (4) For each of the 1000 bootstrap trials, the 3
- year design value was calculated. This will provide a pseudo confidence interval for the partially imputed current
- period design value for the target. (5) S in ce none of the 1000 runs resulted in diagnostic 24
- hour design values for 2008
- 2010 were above the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, the New Garden and Camden monitors were considered to have met the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS during the 2008
- 2010 period. Similarl y, since none of the 1000 runs resulted in diagnostic 24
- hour design values for 2009
- 2011 above the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, the New Garden monitor was considered to have met the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS during the 2009
- 2011 period . For determining the d iagnostic 24
- hour design values for the each incomplete monitor , Steps 1 and 2 were performed separately for each of th e monitors as the target monitor and for each monitoring period, as needed . d. Sta tistical Results of Incomplete Monitors T his section provides a discussion of the statistica l results obtained from filling the incomplete data of the New Garden (site 42
- 029
- 0100) and Camden (site 34
- 007
- 0003) monitors for 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 2011 monitoring periods . Results for each step are provid ed in figures of Appendix B
- 1 “ Statistical Results for Computation of 2008
- 2010 Diagnostic 24
- hour PM 2.5

### 14

Design Values of Monitoring Sites 42
- 029
- 0100 and 34
- 007
- 0003 in the Philadelphia
Wilmington Nonattainment Area ” and Appendix B
- 2 “ Statistical Results for Computation of 200 9
- 201 1 Diagnostic 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### Design Value s for Monitoring Site 42
- 029
- 0100 in the Philadelphia
- Wilmington Nonattainment Area” of this document. Table 4 below presents the diagnostic 24
- hour design values computed through this proc edure for the target monitors for 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 2011 monitoring periods. Table 4. Diagnostic 24 - hour Design Values Computed through EPA’s Statistical Procedure for Incomplete Monitors in the Philadelphia Area (in μg/m 3 

### ) State County Monitor Name AQS Site ID Monitoring Period Diagnostic 24 -

hour Design Value New Jersey Camden Camden 34
- 007
- 0003 2008
- 2010 28 Pennsylvania Chester New Garden 42
- 029
- 0100 2008
- 2010 33 Pennsylvania Chester New Garden 42
- 029
- 0100 2009
- 2010 33 2008 - 2010 24 - hour Design Value for the New Garden Monitor (site 42 - 029 - 0100 ) Figure 2 shows the 2008
- 2010 24
- hour design values and data capture for each monitoring site in the Philadelphia Area. In Figur e 2 , the tar get monitor, New Garden (site 42
- 029
- 0100), is listed as Site A1 and the candidate site, Newark ( site 10
- 003
- 1012), is listed as Site B1. The Newark monitor had the highest correlation with New Garden and met the operating period and paired data eligibility criteria for being a c andi date site. The results of the linear regression between the New Garden and Newark monitors for the 2008
- 2010 24
- hour design value are shown in Figure 3 . Estimates for all deficient quarterly data for 2008
- 2010 were made. As a result of filling in the mi ssing data, the New Garden monitor now had all complete data for 2008
- 2010. A 2008
- 2010 diagnostic 24
- hour design value of 33 g/m 3 

### was calculated for the New Garden monitor ( see Figure 4 ). The statistical confidence of the design value was checked using the method outlined in Step 4. None of the 1000 bootstrapping trials resulted in a violating design value, which provides statistical confidence that the New Garden monitor is attaining the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. The results of the 1000 bootstrap trials are provided in Figure 5 . 2008 - 2010 24 - hour Design Value for the Camden Monitor (site 34 - 007 - 0 103) Figure 6 shows the 2008
- 2010 24
- hour design values and data capture for each monitoring site in the Philadelphia nonattainment area. In Figure 6 , the target monitor, Camden ( site 34
- 007
- 0003 ) is listed as Site A2, and the candidate site, Camden Water Treatment Plant ( site 34
- 007
- 1007 ) , is listed as Site B2. The air monitor at the Municipal Maintenance Yard site in Gloucester County, N ew J ersey ( site 34
- 015
- 0004 ) had the highest correlation with the Camden monitor but did not have sufficient paired data in all quarters. The Camden Water Treatment Plant monitor had the next highest correlation with the Camden monito r and met the operating period and paired dat a eligibility criteria for b eing a candidate site. The results of the linear regression between the

### 15

Camden and Camden Water Treatment Plant monitors for determining the 2008
- 2010 24
- hour design value are shown in Figure 7 . Estimates for the missing data during the 2008
- 2010 period were made. As a result of filling in the missing data, the Camden monitor now had all complete data for 2008
- 2010. Then a 2008
- 2010 diagnostic 24
- hour design value of 28 g/m 3 

### was cal culated for the Camden monitor ( see Figure 8 ) . The statistical confidence of the design value was checked using the method outlined in Step 4. None of the 1000 bootstrapping t rials resul ted in a violating design value , which provides statistical confidence that the Camden monitor is attaining the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. The results of the 1000 bootstrap trials are provided in Figure 9 . 2009 - 2011 24 - hour Design Value for the New Garden Monitor (site 42 - 029 - 0100) Figure 11 shows the 2009
- 2011 24
- hour design values and data capture for each monitoring site in the Philadelphia Area. In Figure 11, the target monitor, New Garden (site 42
- 029
- 0100), is listed as Site A3 and the candidate site, Bellefonte (site 10
- 003
- 1 0 03 ), is listed as Site B3. The Newark monitor, site 10
- 003
- 1012, has the highest correlation with New Garden monitor and has sufficient paired data in all quarters to establish a good relationship with the New Garden monitor . However, this site is incom plete in the same quarter as the New Garden monitor and thus cannot produce sufficient estimates for that quarter. For that reason, the Bellefonte monitor ( s ite 10
- 003
- 1003 ) has been chosen as the candidate site, since it has the next highest correlation with the New Garden monitor and met the operating period and paired data eligibility criteria. The results of the linear regression between the New Garden and Bellefonte monitors for 2009
- 2011 24
- hour design value are shown in Figure 12. Estimates for al l deficient quarterly data for 2009
- 2011 were made. As a result of filling in the missing data, the New Garden monitor now had all complete data for 2009
- 2011. A 2009
- 2011 diagnostic 24
- hour design value of 33 g/m 3 

### was calculated for the New Garden monitor ( see Figure 13 ). The statistical confidence of the design value was checked using the method outlined in Step 4. None of the 1000 bootstrapping trials resulted in a violating design value, which provides statist ical confidence that the New Garden monitor is attaining the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. The results of the 1000 bootstrap trials are provided in Figure 14 . V. RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION Based on the most recent quality
- assured, quality
- controlled, and state certified ambient air monito ring data of the Philadelphia Area for 2008
- 2010 and 2009
- 2011 monitoring periods , EPA proposes to determine that the Philadelphia Area has attain ed the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS . This determination of attainment will suspend the attainment
- related SIP requirements for the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS for the Area, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c). Attachments:

- 

### A ppendix A
- 1 : EPA AQS Preliminary Design Value Report 

### (AMP480) dated July 10, 2012 , containing air quality data for 2008
- 2010, 2009
- 2011, and preliminary 2012 for the following portions of the Philadelphia Area : Delaware, New Jersey, and Bucks and Chester Counties in

### 16

Pennsylvania

- 

### A ppendix A
- 2 : EPA AQS Preliminary Design Value Report 

### (AMP480) dated July 10, 2012, containing air quality data for 2008
- 2010, 2009
- 2011, and preliminary 2012 for the remaining Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia Area



### - Appendix B
- 1: Statistical Results for Computation of 2008
- 2010 Diagnostic 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### Desig n Values of Monitoring Sites 42
- 029
- 0100 and 34
- 007
- 0003 in the Philadelphia
Wilmington Nonattainment Area

- Appendix B
- 2: Statistical Results for Computation of 2009
- 2011 Diagnostic 24
- hour PM 2.5 

### Design Values of Monitoring Site 42
- 029
- 0100 in the Philade lphia
- Wilmington Nonattainment Area

- Appendix C
- 1: EPA’s approval of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s 2011 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan.

- Appendix C
- 2: EPA’s approval of the State of Delaware’s 2011 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan.

- Appendix C
- 3: EPA’s approval of the State of New Jersey’s 2011 Ambient air Monitoring Network Plan.

- A ppendix D : New Jersey Department of Environment al Protection’s request to EPA for the determination of attainment of the 2006 24
- hour PM2.5 for the Philadelphia AreaUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Jul. 10, 2012 Report Request ID: 1004162 Report Code: AMP480

Selection Criteria Page 1 User ID: HXN

State County City

Site Parameter POC AQCR UAR CBSA CSA EPA Region Method Duration Begin Date End Date 10 10 10 10 34 34 42 42 003

003 003 003 007 015 017 029 2004

1003 1007 1012 1007 0004 0012 0100 88101

88101 88101 88101 88101 88101 88101 88101 GEOGRAPHIC SELECTIONS

SELECTED OPTIONS
USER SITE METADATA MERGE PDF FILES QUARTERLY DATA IN WORKFILE WORKFILE DELIMITER SINGLE EVENT PROCESSING Option Type Option Value STREET ADDRESS YES NO

, EXCLUDE REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENTS GLOBAL DATES
2010 Start Date End Date 2012 Tribal Code

APPLICABLE STANDARDS Standard Description PM25 24-hour 2006 PM25 Annual 2006UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 1 of 10UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 2 of 10 

### Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2010

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: Delaware Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert. | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2010 2009 2008
10-003-1003 10-003-1007 10-003-1012 10-003-2004 RIVER ROAD PARK, BELLEFONTE LUMS POND STATE PARK UNIV. DE NORTH CAMPUS MLK BLVD AND JUSTISON ST. 116 114 103 346 4

4 3 4 24.3 27.5 24.9 27.9 * 10.2

10.0 10.4 10.6 * N

N N N 102 101 114 347 4

3 4 4 23.2 20.6 23.4 28.4 * 10.2

10.0 10.6 11.2 * N

N N N 99 108 108 324 3

4 4 4 31.6 28.1 28.6 34.8 * 13.0

11.5 12.5 13.5 * Y

Y Y Y 26

25 26 30 N N N Y 11.1 10.5 11.2 11.7 N

N N YUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 3 of 10 

### Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2011

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: Delaware Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert. | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2011 2010 2009
10-003-1003 10-003-1007 10-003-1012 10-003-2004 RIVER ROAD PARK, BELLEFONTE LUMS POND STATE PARK UNIV. DE NORTH CAMPUS MLK BLVD AND JUSTISON ST. 108 104 106 329 3

4 3 4 22.4 21.0 22.2 24.7 *

* 9.4 8.8 10.4 10.3 *

* N N N N 116 114 103 346 4

4 3 4 24.3 27.5 24.9 27.9 * 10.2

10.0 10.4 10.6 * N

N N N 102 101 114 347 4

3 4 4 23.2 20.6 23.4 28.4 * 10.2

10.0 10.6 11.2 * N

N N N 23

23 24 27 N N N Y 9.9

9.6 10.5 10.7 N

N N YUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 4 of 10 

### Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2012

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: Delaware Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert. | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2012 2011 2010
10-003-1003 10-003-1007 10-003-1012 10-003-2004 RIVER ROAD PARK, BELLEFONTE LUMS POND STATE PARK UNIV. DE NORTH CAMPUS MLK BLVD AND JUSTISON ST. 40 37 41 115 1

1 1 1 20.2 22.7 22.0 23.9 *

*

*

* 8.2 7.5 8.4 9.3 *

*

*

* N N N N 108 104 106 329 3

4 3 4 22.4 21.0 22.2 24.7 *

* 9.4 8.8 10.4 10.3 *

* N N N N 116 114 103 346 4

4 3 4 24.3 27.5 24.9 27.9 * 10.2

10.0 10.4 10.6 * N

N N N 22

24 23 26 N N N N 9.2

8.8 9.7 10.0 N

N N NUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 5 of 10 

### Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2010

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: New Jersey Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert. | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2010 2009 2008
34-007-1007 34-015-0004 Morris Delair Water Treatment Plant, off Griffith-Morgan Lane Municipal Maintenance Yard, North School Street, North of Morse Avenue 117 107 4

3 23.4 21.6 * 9.5

9.1 * N

N 115 116 4

4 25.0 21.9 9.5

9.3 N

N 107 109 4

4 28.0 23.9 11.9

11.5 N

N 25

22 Y N 10.3 10.0 Y

NUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 6 of 10 

### Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2011

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: New Jersey Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert. | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2011 2010 2009
34-007-1007 34-015-0004 Morris Delair Water Treatment Plant, off Griffith-Morgan Lane Municipal Maintenance Yard, North School Street, North of Morse Avenue 118 116 4

4 24.3 22.2 10.1

9.4 N

N 117 107 4

3 23.4 21.6 * 9.5

9.1 * N

N 115 116 4

4 25.0 21.9 9.5

9.3 N

N 24

22 Y N 9.7

9.3 Y NUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 7 of 10 

### Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2012

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: New Jersey Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert. | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2012 2011 2010
34-007-1007 34-015-0004 Morris Delair Water Treatment Plant, off Griffith-Morgan Lane Municipal Maintenance Yard, North School Street, North of Morse Avenue 30 31 1

1 17.5 21.8 *

* 8.6 9.3 *

* N N 118 116 4

4 24.3 22.2 10.1

9.4 N

N 117 107 4

3 23.4 21.6 * 9.5

9.1 * N

N 22

22 N N 9.4

9.3 N NUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 8 of 10 

### Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2010

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: Pennsylvania Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert. | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2010 2009 2008
42-017-0012 42-029-0100 ROCKVIEW LANE NEW GARDEN AIRPORT - TOUGHKENAMON 354 341 4

4 28.3 35.1 10.5

13.8 N

N 319 332 4

4 25.8 31.1 10.8

14.1 N

N 103 102 3

3 30.9 32.0 *

* 12.7 13.7 *

* Y Y 28

33 N N 11.3 13.8 N

NUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 9 of 10 

### Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2011

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: Pennsylvania Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert. | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2011 2010 2009
42-017-0012 42-029-0100 ROCKVIEW LANE NEW GARDEN AIRPORT - TOUGHKENAMON 364 293 4

3 29.7 33.8 * 11.5

13.3 * N

N 354 341 4

4 28.3 35.1 10.5

13.8 N

N 319 332 4

4 25.8 31.1 10.8

14.1 N

N 28

33 Y N 10.9 13.7 Y

NUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 10 of 10 

### Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2012

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: Pennsylvania Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert. | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2012 2011 2010
42-017-0012 42-029-0100 ROCKVIEW LANE NEW GARDEN AIRPORT - TOUGHKENAMON 118 112 1

1 34.9 21.0 *

* 10.2 8.8 *

* N N 364 293 4

3 29.7 33.8 * 11.5

13.3 * N

N 354 341 4

4 28.3 35.1 10.5

13.8 N

N 31

30 N N 10.7 12.0 N

NUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Jul. 10, 2012 Report Request ID: 1004163 Report Code: AMP480

Selection Criteria Page 1 User ID: HXN

State County City

Site Parameter POC AQCR UAR CBSA CSA EPA Region Method Duration Begin Date End Date 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 045

091 101 101 101 101 101 101 0002

0013 0004 0024 0047 0055 0057 1002 88101

88101 88101 88101 88101 88101 88101 88101 GEOGRAPHIC SELECTIONS

SELECTED OPTIONS
USER SITE METADATA MERGE PDF FILES QUARTERLY DATA IN WORKFILE WORKFILE DELIMITER SINGLE EVENT PROCESSING Option Type Option Value STREET ADDRESS YES NO

, EXCLUDE REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENTS GLOBAL DATES
2010 Start Date End Date 2012 Tribal Code

APPLICABLE STANDARDS Standard Description PM25 24-hour 2006 PM25 Annual 2006UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 1 of 4UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 2 of 4 

### Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2010

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: Pennsylvania Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert. | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2010 2009 2008
42-045-0002 42-091-0013 42-101-0004 42-101-0024 42-101-0047 42-101-0055 42-101-0057 FRONT ST & NORRIS ST STATE ARMORY - 1046 BELVOIR RD 1501 E LYCOMING AVE AMS LAB GRANT-ASHTON ROADS PHILA NE AIRPORT 500 SOUTH BROAD STREET - PARKING LOT(CHS 24TH & RITNER STREETS 240 Spring Garden Street 349 330 330 352 357 336 323 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 32.8 25.9 27.6 25.2 27.6 28.9 27.9 13.5

9.5 10.7 9.6 11.0 11.3 10.9 N

N N N N N N 347 330 346 359 363 351 338 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 27.9 27.2 25.9 25.5 27.2 28.6 28.3 12.4

10.4 10.8 9.9 11.1 11.3 11.1 N

N N N N N N 112 109 356 356 366 331 366 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 28.6 23.7 34.5 30.5 32.8 34.5 32.8 13.9

11.7 13.0 12.0 13.5 13.5 13.3 Y

Y N N N N N 30

26 29 27 29 31 30 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 13.3 10.5 11.5 10.5 11.9 12.0 11.7 Y

Y Y Y Y Y YUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 3 of 4 

### Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2011

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: Pennsylvania Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert. | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2011 2010 2009
42-045-0002 42-091-0013 42-101-0004 42-101-0024 42-101-0047 42-101-0055 42-101-0057 42-101-1002 FRONT ST & NORRIS ST STATE ARMORY - 1046 BELVOIR RD 1501 E LYCOMING AVE AMS LAB GRANT-ASHTON ROADS PHILA NE AIRPORT 500 SOUTH BROAD STREET - PARKING LOT(CHS 24TH & RITNER STREETS 240 Spring Garden Street 5200 PENNYPACK PARK PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19136 341 365 348

357 335 345 121 4

4 4

4 4 4 4 28.6 27.6 29.6

27.5 30.6 30.5 27.5 12.9

10.3 13.1

11.4 11.4 11.4 9.0 * N

N N

N N N N 349 330 330 352 357 336 323 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 32.8 25.9 27.6 25.2 27.6 28.9 27.9 13.5

9.5 10.7 9.6 11.0 11.3 10.9

* N

N N N N N N 347 330 346 359 363 351 338 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 27.9 27.2 25.9 25.5 27.2 28.6 28.3 12.4

10.4 10.8 9.9 11.1 11.3 11.1

* N

N N N N N N 30

27 28 25 27 29 29 28 Y Y Y N Y Y Y N 12.9 10.1 11.5 9.8 11.2 11.4 11.1 9.0 Y Y Y N Y Y Y NUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jul. 10, 2012

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 4 of 4 

### Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2012

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: Pennsylvania Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert. | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2012 2011 2010
42-045-0002 42-091-0013 42-101-0004 42-101-0024 42-101-0047 42-101-0055 42-101-0057 42-101-1002 FRONT ST & NORRIS ST STATE ARMORY - 1046 BELVOIR RD 1501 E LYCOMING AVE AMS LAB GRANT-ASHTON ROADS PHILA NE AIRPORT 500 SOUTH BROAD STREET - PARKING LOT(CHS 24TH & RITNER STREETS 240 Spring Garden Street 5200 PENNYPACK PARK PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19136 118 113 91

89 88 90 27 1

1 1

1 1 1 1 23.9 21.1 27.9

20.0 19.6 20.6 23.4 *

*

*

*

*

*

* 10.1 8.0 14.6

9.9 9.8 10.0 13.4 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

* N N N

N N N N 341 365 348

357 335 345 121 4

4 4

4 4 4 4 28.6 27.6 29.6

27.5 30.6 30.5 27.5 12.9

10.3 13.1

11.4 11.4 11.4 9.0 * N

N N

N N N N 349 330 330 352 357 336 323 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 32.8 25.9 27.6 25.2 27.6 28.9 27.9 13.5

9.5 10.7 9.6 11.0 11.3 10.9

* N

N N N N N N 28

25 28 25 25 26 26 25 N N N N N N N N 12.2

9.3 12.8 9.6 10.8 10.9 10.7 11.2 N

N N N N N N N

### 1 A ppendix B - 1 Statistical Results for Computation of 2008 - 2010 Diagnostic 24 - hour PM 2.5 

### Design Values of Monitoring Sites 42 - 029 - 0100 and 34 - 007 - 0003 i n the Philadelphia - Wilmington Nonattainment Area Figure 1. Philadelphia 24 - hour Design Value History

### 2 Figure 2. Philadelphia Sites: 2008 - 2010 24 - hour Design Values, R 2 

### , & Data Capture Compared to Site A1

### 3 Figure 3: Linear Regression Results for Site A1

### 4 Figure 4: Imputation and Resulting Data Capture and 24 - hour Design Value R ecalculation for Site A1

### 5 Figure 5: Bootstrapping Residuals (and 24 - hour Design Value Recalculations) for Site A1

### 6 Figure 6: Philadelphia Sites: 2008 - 2010 24 - hour Design Values, R 2 

### , & Data Capture Compared to Site A2

### 7 Figure 7: Linear Regression Results for Site A2

### 8 Figure 8: Imputation and Resulting Data Capture and DV Recalculation for Site A2

### 9 Figure 9: Bootstrapping Residuals (and 24 - hour Design Value Recalculations) for Site A2

### 1 Appendix B - 2 Statistical Results for Computation of 2009 - 2011 Diagnostic 24 - hour PM 2.5 

### Design Values of Monitoring Site 42 - 029 - 0 100 in the Philadelphia - Wilmington Nonattainment Area Figure 1 0 . Philadelphia 24 - hour Design Value History

### 2 Figure 11 . Philadelphia Sites: 2009 - 2011 24 - hour Design Values, R 2 

### , & Data Capture Compared to Site A3

### 3 Figure 12 : Linear Regression Results for Site A3

### 4 Figure 13 : Imputation and Resulting Data Capture and 24 - hour Design Value R ecalculation for Site A3

### 5 Figure 14 : Bootstrapping Residuals (and 24 - hour Design Value Recalculations) for Site A3UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIll1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania19103-2029TheHonorableMichaelL.Krancer,SecretaryPennsylvaniaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionRachelCarsonState OfficeBuildingP.O.Box2063Harrisburg,Pennsylvania17105-2063DearSecretaryKrancer:DEC062011ByletterandenclosuresdatedAugust4,2011,thePennsylvaniaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(PADEP)submittedtOthe U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)anannualambient airmonitoringnetworkplaninaccordancewiththeregulatoryrequirementsof40CFRSection58-Ambient AirQualitySurveillance.Basedonourreview,EPAhereby approvesPADEP’sAugust4,2011annualambientair monitoringnetworkplanonthebasisthattheplanmeetstherequirementsof40CFRPart58.10.Additionally,40CFRSection58.11(c)requires anychangestotheairmonitoringnetworkordesignofthefollowingair monitoringsystemsbeapprovedbythe EPAAdministrator:a)PhotochemicalAssessmentMonitoringSystems(PAMS)b)ParticulateMatterSpeciationTrendsNetwork(STN)c)TheNational CoreMonitoringNetwork(NCore)EPAdeterminedthatPADEP’sAugust4,2011annualambientairmonitoring networkplandoesnotrequireapprovalfrom theEPAAdministratorbecausetherewerenochangestoanyoftheairmonitoringsystems listedabove.Printedon100%recycled/recyclablepaperwith100%post-consumerfiberandprocesschlorinefree.CustomerServiceHotline:1-800-438-24740IfyouhaveanyquestionspleasedonothesitatetocontactmeorhaveyourstaffcontactDr.JennieSaxe,EPA’sPennsylvaniaLiaison,at(215)814-5806.Forquestionsregardingthisapproval action,yourstaffmay contactMs.DianaEsher,Director,AirProtectionDivision,at(215)814-2706.Sincerely,)ShawnM.GarvinRegionalAdministrétorcc:Ms.JoyceEpps,PADEPMr.NickLazor,PADEPCUNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIII1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania19103-2029DEC062011TheHonorableCollinP.O’Mara, SecretaryDepartmentofNatural ResourcesandEnvironmentalControl89KingsHighwayDover,Delaware19901DearSecretaryO’Mara:ByletterandenclosuresdatedJuly12,2011,theDelawareDepartmentofNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentalControl(DNREC) submittedtotheU.S.EnvironmentalProtection Agency(EPA) anannualambientairmonitoringnetworkplaninaccordancewiththeregulatoryrequirementsof40CFRPart58-AmbientAirQualitySurveillance.Basedonourreview,EPAhereby approvesDNREC’sJuly12,2011annualambientairmonitoringnetworkplanonthebasisthattheplanmeetstherequirementsof40CFRPart58.10.Additionally,40CFRSection58.11(c)requiresanychangestotheairmonitoringnetworkordesignofthefollowingairmonitoringsystemsbeapprovedbytheEPAAdministrator:a)PhotochemicalAssessmentMonitoringSystems(PAMS)b)Particulate MatterSpeciationTrendsNetwork(SIN)c)TheNationalCoreMonitoringNetwork(NCore)EPAdetermined thatDNREC’sJuly12,2011annualambientairmonitoring networkplandoesnOtrequireapprovalfromtheEPAAdministratorbecausetherewerenochangestoanyoftheairmonitoringsystems listedabove.Printedon 100%recycled/recyclablepaperwith100%post-consumerfiberandprocesschlorinefree.CustomerServiceHatilne:1-800-438-2474Ifyouhaveany questionspleasedonothesitatetocontactme orhaveyourstaffcontactMrs.Amie Howell,EPA’sDelawareLiaison,at(215)814-5722,For questionsregardingthisapprovalaction,yourstaffmaycontactMs.DianaEsher,Director, AirProtectionDivision,at(215)814-2706.Sincerely,ShawnM.Garvin7RegionalAdministrIorcc:Mr.AuMirzakhalili,DNRECMr.JosephMartini,DNRECMs.Betsy Frey,DNRECUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 2 290 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10007-1868 

## OCT 2 7 2011 Jane Kozinski Assistant Commissioner, Environmental Management State of New Jersey Department of Environment Protection PO Box 420 Mail Code 401-0JB 401 East State Street
- 3rd floor Trenton. NJ 08625-0420 Dear Ms. Kozinski; This is in response to the Annual Monitoring Network Review Plan (Plan) for New Jersey State's ambient air monitoring program which was submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on August 8, 2011. This is to inform you that EPA Region 2 has 

### reviewed New Jersey's Plan for consistency with 

### 40 CFR Part 58.10 and is approving that portion of the Plan related to the final network design. The portion of the Plan involving the National Core multi-pollutant monitoring station (NCore), PM 2 5 Speciation Trends Network stations, and Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) nehvork design and changes are subject to approval by the EPA Administrator. Accordingly, we will forward that portion of New Jersey's Plan to EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards for review. My staff will be working closely with our Headquarters counterparts and keep your staff informed of the progress of the review of that portion of the Plan. New Jersey proposes to close 3 monitoring sites (Freehold, Morristown, and Perth Amboy) and shutdown 5 parameters ( 4 CO and I PM 10 which was approved for shutdown in 

### 20 l 

### 0). EPA has evaluated and accepts these proposed closures. With respect to the site/parameter closures for CO in locations where there is a CO maintenance plan, we look forward to receiving New Jersey's request to revise the State Implementation Plan (SIP) associated with the CO closures, as discussed further in the attached docwnent. We look forward to working with you to establish the N02 near roadway monitors. We are also excited to hear that the new TSP-lead monitors and the Camden and Fort Lee sites should be fully operational by the end of 2011. Please let us know 

### if there is any assistance we can provide to establish these sites.

Internet Addreu (URL) • h!lpJ/www.epa.gov**~IM'Rtq'CiaDiol•** Pl1ntld wtlh 

# v.-.. Olla...d lnU on**~ ~~M~** **SO%~** eonwJt)

### If you have any questions. please have your staff contact Mr. Richard Ruvo at 212·637·40 14 or Ms. Mazeeda 

### Khan at 212-637-3715. Sincerely,, /

### ~

# /"'/~ 

# r**~** 

# {. John Fihppelh. Acting Direct
-

Division of Environmental Planning and Protection cc: William O'Sullivan, NJDEP Charles Pietarinen, NJDEP Attachment

### ATTACHMENT SECTION 1: CHANGES THAT AFFECT CO MAINTENANCE PLANS The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection lNJDEP) had previously requested a shutdown of the Freehold, Morristown, and Perth Amboy CO monitoring sites. EPA has been discussing the proposed CO monitor shutdowns with NJDEP and the ability to shut down monitors in maintenance areas. EPA and NJDEP have been working on the appropriate analysis 

### for the past few months in order to satisfy the provisions of the CO maintenance plans. NJDEP will submit the analysis to EPA as part of a request to revise the SIP. 

### AN CORA STATE HOSPITAL AOS lD 340071001**~JDEP** 

### recommendation- shutdown CO parameter. Background- Ancora State Hospital, Camden County, is in the Philadelphia-Camden

### Wilmington CBSA. The site operates CO, 0 3 , 

### S02, and acid deposition parameters. The regulatory standard for 8 hour CO is 9 ppm. At Ancora State Hospital, for 2008, 2009, and 2010, the CO first maximwn 8 hour data are 4.4 ppm. 0.4 ppm, and 0.4 ppm, respectively. Once the new Camden site is established, it will represent CO for the area. EPA response- EPA concurs. Sampling for CO at the new Camden monitoring site will be representative for air quality in the area. FREEHOLD AQS lD 340252001 

### NJDEP recommendation- site closure. Background- Freehold, Morunouth County is in the New York·New Jersey·Connecticut CBSA. This site operates CO. The regulatory standard for 8 hour CO is 9 ppm. At Freehold, for 2008, 2009, 

### and 2010. 

### the CO tirst maximum 8 hour data are 2.0 

### ppm. 2.4 

### ppm, and 2.1 

### ppm, respectively. The Elizabeth site, the closest site to Freehold, is 28 miles away. At Elizabeth, for 2008.2009, and 2010. the CO first maximum 8 hour data are 2.4 ppm. 2.2 ppm. and 2.2 ppm. respectively. EPA response- EPA concurs. With respect to CO, this site operated consistent with an EPA approved CO maintenance plan. Since NJDEP wishes to shutdown the site to redirect resources to new regulatory requirements, NJDEP needs to provide additional analysis to EPA to address the CO maintenance plan. EPA will make a determination on NJDEP's analysis as a revision to the SIP. :110RRISTOWN AQS ID 340270003

### NJDEP recommendation- site closure. Background- Morristown, Morris County, is in the New York· New Jersey·Connecticut CBSA. This site operates CO. The regulatory standard for 8 hour CO is 9 ppm. At**Morristo~n.** 

### for 2008, 2009, and 201 0. the CO first maximwn 8 hour data are 1.5 ppm. 1.0 ppm. and 1.1 

### ppm. respectively. The Elizabeth site. the closest site to Morristo\\on, is 17 miles away. At Elizabeth. for 2008,2009. and 2010, the CO first maximum 8 hour data are 2.4 ppm. 2.2 ppm, and 2.2 ppm, respectively. EPA 

### response- EPA 

### concun. With respect to CO. this site operated consistent with an EPA approved CO maintenance plan. Since NJDEP wishes to shutdovm the site to redirect resources to new regulatory requirements. NJDEP needs to provide additional analysis to EPA to address the CO maintenance plan. EPA will make a determination on NJDEP's analysis as a revision to the SIP. PERTH AMBOY AQS ID 340232003 NJDEP recommendation- site closure. Background- Perth Amboy. Middlesex County. is in the New York· New Jersey·Connecticut CBSA. The site operates CO. The regulatory standard for 8 hour CO is 9 ppm. At Perth Amboy. for 2008, 2009. and 2010, the CO first maximum 8 hour data are 1.2 ppm. 1.6 ppm, and 1.5 ppm, respectively. The Elizabeth site is II miles away and generally has higher values than that in Perth Amboy. At Elizabeth. for 2008,2009, and 2010, the CO first maximum 8 hour data are 2.4 ppm. 2.2 ppm. and 2.2 ppm, respectively. 

### EPA response 

### -EPA concurs. With respect to CO, this site operated consistent with an EPA approved CO maintenance plan. Since NJDEP wishes to shutdovm the site to redirect resources to new regulatory requirements, NJDEP needs to provide additional analysis to EPA to address the CO maintenance plan. EPA will make a determination on NJDEP's analysis as a revision to the SIP. SECTION 2: MONITORING SITE CHANGES TRENTON AQS ID 340210008 NJDEP recommendation- PM 10 

### shutdo\\n. Background- Trenton, Mercer County, is in the Trenton CBSA. The site has a**P~h** 5 

### filter based sampler and a PM 1 

### o filter based sampler. The regulatory standard for PM 1 

### o arithmetic mean is 50 ug/m 3

. 

### At Trenton, the PM 10 

### arithmetic mean data for 2008, 2009 and 2010 are 24.4 ug/m 3 • 

### 16.6 ug/m 3 • 

### and 20.6 ug/m 3 , 

### respectively. The arithmetic mean data at the Camden RRF site. the closest PM 1 

### o filter based sampler, in 2008, 2009. and 2010, are 26.8 ug/m 3 • 

### 36.7 ug!m 3 • 

### and 30.1 ug/m 3 • 

### respectively In addition, the new Camden site will also be representative of the area.

### EPA response- EPA concurs. This parameter shutdown was previously approved in last year's 2010 annual plan. EPA agrees with shutting down the parameter because PM:: 5 

### is the pollutant of concern in the CBSA for particles. The data at Trenton is Jess than SO% 

### of the current regulatory standard. The area will be represented by the PM 10 

### filter based sampler at the Camden RRF and the new Camden sites. FORT LEE AQS ID 340030004 NJDEP recommendation- CO, PM 2 

### s, PM 10 

### startup. Background- Fort Lee, Bergen County, is in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut CBSA. This site operates CO. PM 10 

### tilter based sampler, and PM 2 5 

### continuous sampler. In November ::!009. 

### the site was shutdo'Nll because of major utility repairs. 

### EPA response- EPA concurs with reestablishing this site. RIDER UNIVERSITY AQS 1D 340210005 NJDEP recommendation- S0 2 

### startup. Background- Rider University, Mercer County, is in the Trenton CBSA. The site has NO, N0 2 , 

### NOy, 0 3 , 03 precursors, and meteorological parameters. 

### EPA response- EPA concurs with the 

### S02 startup at this site. NEW ARK FIREHOUSE AQS ID 340130003 NJDEP recommendation- NOz, 

### NO\., PMcoarse, TSP-lead, and meteorological parameters startup. Background- Newark Firehouse, Essex County, is in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut CBSA. The site currently operates CO, 03, SOz, PM2 s filter based sampler, PM2 

### s tilter based speciation, and PM:: 5 

### continuous sampler. 

### EPA response- EPA concurs with additional parameters. This site 

### will be NJDEP's NCore site. EPA looks fonvard to the continued improvements to the site to achieve that status. COLUMBIA LAKE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA {WMA) AQS ID 340410007 NJDEP recommendation- new site with PM:: 5 

### tilter based and continuous, 0 3 • 

### NO::, and S0 2 

### parameters.

### Background -Columbia, Warren County, is in the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton CBSA. This site will measure impact of major point sources located in Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River. 

### EPA response- EPA concurs with the additional parameters being added to the site. CAMDEN AQS ID 340070011 NJDEP recommendation- CO. N02. 03, S02, PM2 

### s filter based and continuous, PM2 5 

### speciation. PM 10 • 

### PAMS, VOC, carbonyls, and meteorological parameters startup. Background- Camden, Camden County, is in the Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington CBSA. The old Camden site was discontinued because of repeated acts of vandalism and theft. Accordingly, the site was closed and NJDEP. in conjunction with EPA Region 

### 2. surveyed various locations for a secure, appropriate site. Possible locations included PSE&G, the Brimms School and Sacred Heart Church. The Brimms School is near the old Camden site and within the community; however, there will be similar security issues. As for Sacred Heart. there is no additional room to locate a new trailer with a comprehensive monitoring site. PSE&G was selected in consultation between New Jersey. EPA Region 

### 2. as well as the local Environmental Justice Council in Camden. The new Camden site will have trace CO, N0 2 , 

### and S0 2 , 0 3 • 

### Smoke Shade, PM2 

### s filter based, PM2 5 

### speciation, real time PM 2 . 5 , 

### PM 10 

### filter based, 0 3 

### precursors (PAMS parameters), VOCs. Carbonyls, Barometric pressure. Relative Humidity, Solar Radiation. Temperature, Wind Direction, and Wind Speed. 

### EPA response- EPA concurs. Establishing a new site at the PSE&G offers security and adequate space. The site meets siting criteria. Accordingly, EPA concurs with the establishment of the site. In general. the new site will monitor for all parameters sampled at previous site including taxies. carbonyls, speciation. and other criteria pollutants. New Jersey is installing a more secure trailer at the site.

### ~tnte 

## of 

# em**J:h~rs£fJ** CI mls CIIRIST1[ 1\1\1 Cli .. \DMiNO

1.1. (;'}\'c'l'Jwr DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONy!ENTAL PROTECflON OFFICE OF TIlE CO'\!y!lSSlONER P.O. Box**~01** TRENT01':, NJ**OX615·0~01** Il013 ,\I,\RTIN Cu 111111 issiul/t'1' October 5, 20 II
Honorable Judith A. Enck Regional Administrator US EPA, Region 2 290 Broadway, 26 th Floor New York, NY 10007- 1866 Dear Regional Administrator Enck: 'The State of New Jersey requests the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) determine the air quality in New Jersey and its multi-state nonattainmenl areas is meeting the fine particle matter (PM::'.)) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This determination is referred to as a "clean data determination." This req uest is tor clean data detenninations for: I. The daily standard for the Northern New Jersey-New York-Long Island (NNJ-NY-CT) nonattainmellt area. All monitors in New Jersey and the other states in this multi-state nonattainment area have shown compliance with the daily standard for the 2007-2009 monitoring period. ') The annual fine particle stanclard for the Southern New Jersey-Philadelphia-Wilmington (SNJ-PA-DE) non attainment area. All monitors in New Jersey and the other states in this multi-state nonnttaimnent area have shown compliance with the annual standard Ic)r thc 2007-200lJ monitoring period. 3. The daily tine particle standard t()r the Southern New Jersey-Philadelphia-Wilmington nonattainment area. All monitors in New Jersey and the other states in this multi-state nonattailll11ent area have shown compliance with the daily standard for the 2008-20 I0 monitoring period. The USEP;\ had previously detclmined that the NNJ-NY -CT PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained the 1997 annual PM 2 ,5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 monitoring period. The USEPA issued a clean data determination Ic)r the area on Nc)\cmber 15,2010 (75 FR 69589). The state of New Jersey is requesting that the USEPA pcrtc))"JTI an analysis fi:Jf the 24-hour tine particulatematter NAAQS f()r the NNJ-NY-CT nonattainment area and the 1997 annual and 24-hour line particle NAAQS for the**SNJ-PA~DE** nonattainmcnt area. The State believes that the US EPA can pertonn the same analysis as done for the tomler NNJ-NY-CT annual PM}.5 nonattainmenl area and find that the NNJ -NY -CT and SNJ-PA- DE nonattainmcnt areas are meeting the tine particle NAAQS. lnfomlation needed for the USEPA to make the c1can data detclmination (40 CPR 51.918) is summarized in the attachments to this letter. The State Implementation Plan contains a wide range of real, quanti fiable, enforceable and permanent, federal and stute control measures to reduce PM25, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur dioxide emissions. A summary of these measures is included in Attachment 5. We appreciate the assistance your staff provided New Jersey in preparing this request and their continued efforts to assist us in achieving clean air in New Jersey and the region. Achieving the annual and daily PM25 health standards is a significant accomplishment f()r our nir quality tenms. If you or your staff has any questions, please contact Ms. Sharon Davis, Air Quality Planning Section Chief: at (609) 292-6722.

Attachments c: Jane Kozinski, Assistant Commissioner, NJDEP Ray Wcmer, USEPA Rick Ruvo, USEPA Ken Fradkin, USEPA

### Attachment 1 Clean Data Determination Request Summary Northern New Jersey-New York-Long Island CNNJ-NY-CT) Nonattainment Area • New Jersey's fine particle matter (PM2.5) air quality data in the Air Quality System measured through 2010 is complete, quality-assured, certified ambient air quality monitoring data. See summary in Attachment 2. • The data shows that the highest design value in the NNJ-NY-CT nonattainrnent area for the three year period 2007-2009, 35 Jlg/m 3 measured at PS 59 in New York, meets the 24-hr PM 2 . 5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of35 Jlg/m 3 • The highest design value for the New Jersey portion of the nonattainrnent area is 33 Jlg/m 3 measured at Union City.
• The 24-hour PM2,5concentrations in New Jersey have shown a significant overall decreasing trend over time as shown in the chart in Attachment 4. 

### Southern New Jersey-Philadelphia-Wilmington (SNJ-PA-DE) Nonattainment Area
• Some data was incomplete for some monitors in the SNJ-PA-DE nonattainrnent area. The USEPA concluded that substitution could be used for monitoring sites with incomplete data. The USEPA's analysis of the SNJ-PA-DE nonattainrnent area's PM2.5 air quality data was provided to the states by the USEP A in an email dated June 9, 2011. See summary in Attachment 3. • The data shows that the highest design value for the annual standard in the SNJ-PA-DE nonattainrnent area for the three year period 2007-2009, 13.9 Jlg/m 3 measured at Chester, Pennsylvania meets the effective annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 Jlg/m 3 • The highest design value for the New Jersey portion of the nonattainrnent area is 11.7 Jlg/m 3 measured at Camden. • The data shows that the highest design value for the 24-hour standard in the SNJ-PA-DE nonattainrnent area for the three year period 2008-2010, 33 Jlg/m 3 measured at Chester, Pennsylvania, meets the effective 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS of35 Jlg/m 3

. The highest design value for the New Jersey portion of the nonattainrnent area is 25 Jlg/m 3 measured at Camden.
• The annual and 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations in New Jersey have shown a significant overall decreasing trend over time as shown in the chart in Attachment 4.

### Control Measures • The New Jersey 1997 Annual PM 2 .5 Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) was submitted to the USEPA on March 26, 2009. The New Jersey Regional Haze SIP was submitted to the USEPA on July 28,2009. The SIPs document a wide range of real, quantifiable, enforceable and pennanent, federal and state control measures adopted and/or implemented to reduce past and future 

### PM 2 • S , oxides of nitrogen and sulfur dioxide emissions. A summary of these measures is included in Attachment 5.

### Attachment 2 Clean Data Determination Request
- 2006 24-Hour PM 2 • 5 

### NAAQS Northern New Jersey-New York-Long Island (NNJ-NY-CT) Nonattainment Area Air Quality Monitoring Data On November 13, 2009, the USEP A promulgated designations for the 2006 24-hour PM 2 . 5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (74 FR 58688) of35 Ilglm3. Under the 24-hour NAAQS designations, New Jersey was included in two multi-state non-attainment areas. Air quality monitors 

### in the New Jersey portion of the NNJ-NY-CT nonattainment area now monitor attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM 2 . 5 NAAQS. Furthermore, the Connecticut and New York State portions of the NNJ -NY -CT nonattainment area monitor attainment of the 2006 24­ hour PM 2 . 5 NAAQS as well. The following table contains complete, quality assured 2007-2009 and 2008-201024­ hour PM 2 . 5 design values that have been certified by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as accurate.24-hour PM2.5 Monitoring Summary 2009 and 2010 Certified Design Values Northern New Jersey-New York-Connecticut Nonattalnment Area Last Updated 9/20/11 Dally PM2.5 Monitored Values

24-Hour9St!I

Percentile Dally PM2.5

DV" Dally PM2.5

DV" Notes State County Monitor Site AQS Monitor 10 2007 200S 2009 2010 2007-9 2008-10 Year lua/m 3 lua/m 3 lun/m 3 un/m 3 ua/m 3 ua/m 3 Units

35 35 35 35 35 35 NAAQS NJ Beroen Fort Lee 34 003 0003 35 32 27 25 31 28 Shutdown Essex Newark Cultural Center 35 29 SO NA NA­ NA­ 7/24/2008, New Newark site up 340130015 6/30/2009 Essex Newark Firehouse 340130003 NA NA NA 24 NA­ NA- New Newark site up 6/30/2009 Hudson Jersey City Primary 340171003 35 32 29 26 32 29 Hudson Union City 340172002 39 33 27 27 33 29 Mercer Trenton 340210008 33 31 23 28 29 27 Mercer Washington Crossing 34 0218001 27 28 22 19 26 23 Middlesex New Brunswick 34 023 0006 30 29 21 19 27 23 Morris MorrIstown 340270004 32 24 22 23 26 23 Morris Chester 340273001 31 24 21 23 26 23 Passaic Paterson 34 0310005 37 29 26 24 30 26 Union Elizabeth Turnpike Primary 34 039 0004 35 34 28 28 32 30 Union Elizabeth Downtown 34 039 0006 36 31 26 25 31 27 Union Rahway 340392003 33 30 25 24 30 26 NY Bronx Morrlsanla 360050080 36 31 30 27 33 30 Bronx 200th Street And Southern Blvd. 360050133 NA 30 27 25 29 27 Bronx E. 156th SL 360050110 34 30 31 25 32 29 No data gathered after 6/16/10. Brooklyn JHS 126 360470122 34 29 27 25 30 27 Nassau Cedarhurst 360590008 29 29 26 20 28 25 New York PS 59 360610056 37 33 NA NA 35 NAShutdown mid· 2008 (building demolished) New York JHS45 360610079 34 32 29 25 32 29 New York PS 19 36061 0128 38 26 29 25 31 27 New York PS 124 36061 0134 37 32 29 27 33 29 Queens Newburgh. 55 Broadway 360710002 30 26 21 27 26 24 Queens Queens College 360810124 32 30 27 26 30 28 Staten Island Port Richmond 360850055 33 29 25 26 29 26 Staten Island Susan Wagner HS 360850067 29 28 23 22 27 24 Suffolk East FarmlnadaleiBabylon 36 1030001/2 29 27 22 26 26 24 Westchester Mamaroneck 361191002 31 30 27 27 29 28AQS Monitor 10 DailyPM2.5 Monitored Values

24-Hour 98 th

Percentile Dally PM2.5

DV* Dally PM2.5

DV* Notes State County Monitor Site 2007 2008 2009 2010 2007-9 2008·10 Year IUQ/m J lualm J lualm J lualm J ualm J ua/m J Units

35 35 35 35 35 35 NAAQS CT Fairfield Roosevelt School 09001 0010 30 32 29 23 31 28 I Fairfield Vl:I VV I"::" 3l 28 28 26 29 2i Fairfield Norwalk 090013005 32 26 29 23 29 26 Fairfield Westport 090019003 29 31 26 24 29 27 New Haven New Haven Woodward Av 090090026 30 31 29 NA 30 NA" Site shutdown 2010 New Haven New Haven James St 090090027 31 32 30 26 31 29 New Haven New Haven State St 090091123 31 32 31 24 31 29 New Haven New Haven Huntington St 090092008 29 25 27 NA 27 NA" Site shutdown 2010 New Haven Waterbury 090092123 33 28 28 26 30 27 Notes • =Oeslgn Value=average of three year period. "=Oata not available since 3 years of data are needed to calculate a design value at a monitor. NA = Data Not Available SO = Monitor Shutdown Data sources are either from the State Agency or AirOata (EPA's public query system that accesses AQS)PM 2 . 5 Concentration (pg/rn 3 ) -' N N w o (Jl o o (Jl o 

## w CJ1 Fort Lee, NJ

## .~.~ •••••••••••• 

# -l_--r--' 1::: Jersey City Primary, NJ •••••••• Union City, NJ ••••••••

Trenton, NJ Washington Crossing, NJ New Brunswick, NJ •••••• i!I •••**~.** Morristown, NJ Chester, NJ •••••••••• Paterson, NJ •••••••• IIIi ••• IIIi. Elizabeth Turnpike Primary, NJ II ••••• Elizabeth Downtown, NJ •••••••••••••• Rahway,NJ •••••••••••••• Morrisania, NY •••••••• 

## e ••••**~_** 200th Street, NY E. 156th St., NY •••••• .- •• :5: 

### o JHS 126, NY :;, ;:;: 

### o Cedarhurst, NY 

### .., CIl ;:;: JHS 45, NY 

## lailll.III •••**JJiij.JJiij.~** (1) 

# •• PS 19, NY

### \Ul1II.1II~ 

# •• E.iiI.
PS 124, NY

### .iiiI.IIiI.IIiI.IB~iiI Newburgh, 55 Broadway, NY 

## lee.e ••**e~ee** 

## •• Queens College, NY ••• 

## e.D •• ee •••**~~**

Port Richmond, NY Susan Wagner HS, NY East Farmingdale/Babylon, NY ••••••• 

# m •••• Mamaroneck, NY ••• Roosevelt School, CT •••••••••••••••• Danbury,CT •••••••••••••• Norwalk, CT
. Westport, CT James Street, CT •••••••••••••••

Stale Street, CT •••••••••••••••

Waterbury, CT ".

__ "'

__**~._L_~.** <.f2.. :3 w 0 [l) .;.: N 0 0
Z 0 ;:+ :::r (1 ) 

### .., :::I Z (1) c... (1) 

### .., 

## s: -0 (II (1) '< I 0'1 Z N (1) 0 

# ... ::: 0 

### -< Cl 0 

### .., OJ 

# '" • 

# -< (") 0 0 :::I (!) :::I III (1) 

# - (') (Q ::l (') c: 

## ,... 

## < OJ Z 

### c 0 <t> ::l III tu tu :::I 

### 3 (1) :;, 1"+ ).> 

### .., CD OJ

### Attachment 3 Clean Data Determination Request1997 

### Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Southern New Jersey-Philadelphia-Wilmington (SNJ-PA-DE) Nonattainment Area Air Oualitv Monitoring Data The SNJ-PA-DE non attainment area was designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual fine particle matter (PM 2 . S ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 15 Ilglm3 on December 17,2004 (70 FR 944). Under the annual NAAQS, New Jersey was included in two multi-state non-attainment areas. On November 13, 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.S NAAQS (74 FR 58688) of35 J,lglm 3

. Under the 24-hour NAAQS designations, New Jersey was also included in two multi-state nonattainment areas. Air quality monitors in the New Jersey portion of the SNJ-PA-DE nonattainment area now monitor attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.S NAAQS and the 200624­ hour PM 2 . S NAAQS. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania and Delaware State portions of the SNJ-PA-DE nonattainment area monitor attainment ofthe 1997 annual PM2.S NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.S NAAQS as well. On June 9, 2011, the USEPA provided the states in the SNJ-PA-DE nonattainment area with an analysis of the PM 2 . S monitoring data for this area. The USEPA concluded that for the years 2007-2009 data substitution could be used at monitoring sites with incomplete data for the annual standard, but not for the 24-hour standard at the Chester, PA monitoring site. However, the USEPA concluded that data substitution could be used for the years 2008-2010 at monitoring sites with incomplete data for the 24-hour standard. The following table contains 2008-2010 annual and daily PM2.S design values that were provided to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection by the USEPA.Annual and 24-hour PM2.5 Monitoring Summary 2009 and 2010 Certified Design Values Southern New Jersey-Philadelphia-Wilmington Last Updated 6/9/11 State County Monitor Site AQS Monitor ID Annual Mean PM2.5 Monitored Values Annual PM2.5 DV· Annual PM2.5 DV* Daily PM2.5 Monitored Values Daily PM2.5 DV* Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2007-2009 2008-2010 2008 2009 2010 2008-10 Units
. ua/m 3 ua/m 3 ua/m 3 ua/m 3 un/m 3 Notes ua/m 3 Notes ua/m 3 ua/m 3 ua/m 3 JJg/m 3 Notes NAAQS 15 15 15 15 15 15 35 35 35 35 NJ Camden Pennsauken 340071007 13.8 11.9 9.5 9.5 11.7 C 10.3 C 28.0 25.0 23.4 25.0 C Gloucester Gibbstown 340150004 13.3 11.5 9.3 9.1 11.4 Max 

## a Sub. 10.0 C 23.9 21.9 21.6 22.0 C New Castle Bellefonte 100031003 13.4 13.0 10.2 10.2 12.2 Max Q Sub. 11.1 MaxQ Sub. 31.6 23.2 24.3 26.0 MaxQ Sub. DE New Castle Lums 100031007 12.5 11.5 10.0 10.0 11.3 Max Q Sub. 10.5 MaxQ Sub. 28.1 20.6 27.5 25.0 MaxQ Sub. New Castle Nwrk-a 100031012 13.4 12.5 10.6 10.4 12.2 C 11.2 C 28.6 23.4 24.9 26.0 C New Castle MLK-a 100032004 14.4 13.5 11.2 10.6 13.0 C 11.7 C 34.8 28.4 27.9 30.0 C Bucks Bristol 420170012 13.0 12.7 10.8 10.5 12.2 C 11.3 C 30.9 25.8 28.3 28.0 C PA Chester New Garden 420290100 14.1 13.7 14.1 13.8 13.9 I 13.8 MaxQ Sub. 32.0 31.1 35.1 33.0 I Delaware Chester 420450002 14.7 13.9 12.4 13.5 13.7 C 13.3 C 28.6 27.9 32.8 30.0 C**Mont~omery** Norristown 420910013 13.1 11.7 10.4 9.5 11.7 C 10.5 C 23.7 27.2 25.9 26.0 C Philadelphia LAB 421010004 13.7 13.0 10.8 10.7 12.5 C 11.5 C 34.5 25.9 27.6 29.0 C Philadelphia NEA 421010024 12.9 12.0 9.9 9.6 11.6 Max 

## a Sub. 10.5 C 30.5 25.5 25.2 27.0 C Philadelphia CHS, Broad Sf. 421010047 14.3 13.5 11.1 11.0 13.0 Max Q Sub. 11.9 C 32.8 27.2 27.6 29.0 C Philadelphia RIT-F 421010055 NO 13.5 11.3 11.3 12.4 C 12.0 C 34.5 28.6 28.9 31.0 C Philadelphia FAB-FA 421010057 NO 13.3 11.1 10.9 12.1 C 11.7 G 32.8 28.3 27.9 30.0 G Notes: Source: USEPA email dated June 9, 2011 NO indicates that a monitoring site was not operational "Max Q Sub." indicates that data was incomplete, but the annual mean of the "incomplete year" has deemed valid because it passed a data substitution test. "C" indicates complete data16 PM 2 . 5 2010 Annual Design Values Southern New Jersey-Philadelphia-Wilmington Nonattainment Area

T"'--'-'--" 14 I**.~** __ •• _ •••. _ _._-----_ .. - .. _-_ ... - .,--",,-**~-** _._---- ---' ..**----~~_.,.,,--_**



### ME 

# ­ OJ 10 :2. C o "';; co 1:; 8 c C1I u c o U



## c, 6 N 2 0... 4
2


## a 12**.!-~~.-,---._.-** .... ---_ .... , -----.--- .. -. -- .. --------.-- I

....., ....., w w w w 

### « « « « « « 

### « « « 0 z z n.. n.. n.. n.. n.. CL n.. n.. n.. 0 0 0 a) 'f) 

### ro 

### ro 

### c c c ...: C cD lL C E 

## 6 .Y Ui Ui -1 « llJ "0 Q) 

### « « Ql Ql ;; if) u.. L. 0 ::l -1 ';:: 

### -e {1) z v ill S? :; CD Ui «l 0:: -1 \U CD .c .2 z 2 rJ) 'C 

### « .a <.9 U 2 LL Q c 0 CD CD (5 3: (lJ C) Z Q.. Z r.ri I U Monitor Site 'i5pgim3 Annual (1997,2006)PM 2 . S Concentration**(~g/m3)** o Bellefonte, DE
Lums, DE
Nwrk-a, DE
MLK-a, DE
Gibbstown, NJ
Pennsauken, NJ
Bristol, PA o :J 

## S ., New Garden, PA 

### en ;:;: (1) Chesler, PA
Norristown, PA
LAB,PA
NEA,PA CHS, Broad St., PA
RIT-F, PA
FAB-FA, PA ...... N N c..v U1 o U1 0 U1 o
i 

# I I I 

# I ! t 

# ; m UJ I 0 

### c: c: -' CD 

## .., :::l 

## J Z ('l) 

# I L.. CD 

## .., CfJ iJ CD S '<

I tv I "'tl i.n 

### :r N 0 to) c- o**-~** CD 0 "0 :r**~,** l1J '< I 0 (\) I./J :::l -' (Q ::; ::l (Q 

## < ..... QJ 0 :::J 

### c:: CD Z CfJ 0 ::l llJ


### . 

### ..... OJ :::l :::l ..) CD ::l**~.** );. 

### .., CD OJ

### · Attachment 4 . Monitoring Trend ChartsPM 2 . 5 Design Value Concentrations in New Jersey Annual Design Values 1999-2010 20 18 16

# ~~---~.~

........ 14

.. ....... 

### . 

### .. . ..

.. ....... p .... -- .. .. .... ... ....
... .. ..., 

### ... .§ 12 OJ 3 c: 0 '.;J 10


# - ro 

## ... c: Q) u ...... Median c: 8 0 (J

--- Maximum Site 6**-~-** Minimum Site 4 2 

### o .1- 1 ---,- --,-- ----- --,-- _

1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007 -2009 2008·2010PM 2 . 5 Concentrations in New Jersey Daily Design Values 1999·2010 70 Former Daily PM 2 . 5 NAAQS 

## = 65.0 pg/m 3 60
50

M 

## E

## /'~--~"~ 01 .3 40 

### ._- - 

# -- - '-'- 

# ------­ c .'-.. ... 

## g

.. '_ ..... It "'",";: - .... 

# .- .- ...**~-** 

# - .-._ ... , 

### ... ".,."- '-. 

## .. .. 

# - - 

# -**-~.-** 

### .... 

## _. 

# - .- 

## ._ .. 

### _. .... ,"". """"" ::"""..,.. .. .... .**---~.-'** .. - .... ­ 3 ..... N

## e~ . 

## Daily' Pfv1 2 . 

### .s.

## ~AAas---"'-35-cQ~g/m c 

### .. 8 30



### . .. c '"' 

### ........ o u 20

10



### o -1'-----------..,--- -:- ..,- -'- ----,.. ...1 1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008·2010 Median ---- Maximum Site Minimum Site

### Attachment 5 PM2.5 Control Measure Summary

### New Jersey Control Strategies New Jersey has taken significant actions to reduce the emissions of fine particle matter (PM2.5) and its precursors, as demonstrated in several recent State Implementation Plan revisions (8-hour ozone - October 2007, PM2.S
- March 2009, Regional Haze
- July 2009). This attachment includes a summary of federal and state control measures that have resulted in a reduction of emissions ofPM2.s and its precursors (oxides of nitrogen and sulfur dioxide). These emission reductions and other reductions resulting from actions by the other states in our multi-state nonattainment area have helped New Jersey and our multi-state non attainment area to attain the annual and daily PM2.S standards. Additionally, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) determined that the Northern New JerseyNew York-Long Island (NN J -NY -CT) PM 2 . 5 nonattainment area has attained the 1997 annual PM 2 .5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 monitoring period. The USEPA issued a clean data determination for the area on November 15, 2010 (75 FR 69589).I I I PM2.5 Control Measure Summary, 2002 Base Year Inventory I I I Last Updated 7/29/11 j , I f I New Jersey I I Administrative Code (NJAC} Federal Energy Conservation Standards for New I N/A ! ! Federal Commercial and Multi-Family High-Rise I I Residential Buildings and New Federal Low­ ; ! i Rise Residential Buildings I , I I Federal I Residential Woodstove NSPS I N/A 

## I N/A Area I PM, NOx, I ! I I CO, voe Federal lonroad Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) I N/A I N/A ArealOnroad 

# i VOC I bevond Staae II Federal ; Diesel Marine Enclnes over 37 kW I N/A I N/A Nonroad NOx, VOC I Federal I Large Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines over 19 I N/A ! ,kW 

### I 

### i Federal Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression- N/A 

### ! Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per i Cylinder 

### I Federal 

## I New Nonroad Engine Standards I N/A I
, i I I Federal 

## I Nonroad Diesel Engines ! N/A I N/A , Nonroad I PM, NOx, I I I , CO,VOC Federa! I Phase 2 Standards for New Nonroad SparkI N/A N/A
I Nonroad I NOx, VOC, I,gnition Nonhandheld Engines at or below 19 I CO ,kW I ..I Federal 

## I**~hase** 2 Standards for Small Spark-Ignition I N/A 

## I N/A I Nonroad : NOx, VOC, Handheld Engines at or below 19 kW I CO Federal IRecreational Vehicles (includes snowmobiles, I N/A N/A Nonroad I NOx, CO, I ioff-highway motorcycles, and all-terrain , I ! HC, Ivehicles) i I Federal [Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Defeat I N/A I N/A Onroad 

### ! NOx i I Device Settlement I ! Federal Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Engine N/A I N/A Onroad NOx, HC Standards I I Federal National Low Emission Vehicle Program N/A 

## I N/A I Onroad I PM, NOx, (NLEV) CO,VOC Federal Tier 1 Vehicle Program I N/A I N/A Onroad PM, NOx, I 

### ! : . CO, NMHC Federal iTier 2 Vehicle Program/Low Sulfur Fuels I N/A I N/A Onroad S02 Federal Acid Rain N/A N/A Point S02 Federal !Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) I N/A N/A Point I S02' NO. , Federal I Refinery Consent Decrees (Sunoco, Valero) I N/A I N/A Point I PM, S02' I I , I NO. I , Federal I Refinery Consent Decrees (Sunoco, Valero, I N/A I N/A 

## I Point I PM, S02. and ConocoPhillips) I i i NO. : Federal I USEPA MACT Standards including Industrial I N/A 

# I N/A I Point i VOC, HAP I Boiler/Process Heater MACT i New Jersey IArchitectural Coatings 2005 NJAC 7:27-23 11/30/2005 Area voe New Jersey Asphalt Pavina I NJAC 7:27-16.19 I 8/3/2010 Area VOC New**Jerse~** Consumer Products 2005 

### I NJAC 7:27-24 1/25/2006 Area I voe New Jersev Consumer Products 2009 Amendments ! NJAC 7:27-24 I 7/22/2010 Area VOC New Jersey . Mobile Equipment Repair and RefinishinL-1 NJAe 7:27-16.12 I 7/2/2004 Area 

### I voe New Jersev Smoke Management I N/A I N/A I Area PM , I EPA ., 

# I Sector Pollutants Approval N/A Area 

## I NOx, S02 I

N/A i Nonroad I NOx. CO N/A PM, NOx, (CO, VOC) Nonroad N/A Nonroad VOC, NOx, :PMPM2.5 Control Measure Summary, 2002 Base Year Inventory I, I I I I Last Updated 7129/11 I I r 

# I New Jersey EPA I Sector Pollutants

Administrative Approval I Code INJAC\ New Jersey IStage I and Stage II (Gasoline Transfer I NJAC 7:27-16.3 

# I 71212004 Lea \ VOC Operations) ! , New Jersey I Portable Fuel Containers 2005 

# I NJAC 7:27-24 11/25/2006 I Area and VOC Nonroad New Jersey Portable Fuel Containers 2009 Amendments 

## I NJAC 7:27-24 

## I 7/2212010 

## I Area and VOC I Nonroad New Jersey Adhesives and Sealants 

## I NJAC 7:27-26 I 7/2212010 I Area and

II VOC 'I 'I Point New Jersey 

### I Diesel Risk Reduction Efforts at Ports 

### I N/A N/A Nonroad PM New Jersey I Diesel Idling Rule Amendments I NJAC 7:27-14.1, I 4/14/2009 I Onroad I PM 2 . 5 , NO. I I I 14.3 I , New Jersey I Diesel Smoke (11M Cutpoint) Rule Amendments I NJAC 7:27-14 TBD 

# I Onroad PM 2 . 5 , NO. I New Jersey INew Jersey Heavy Duty Diesel Rules InclUding NJAC 7:27-2612818127120071 Onroad PM, S02,

, "Not-To-Exceed" (NTE) Requirements I I NOx i I New Jersey New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) NJAC 7:27-29 

## I 2/13/2008 I On road I PM,80 2 , Program I NO., VOC, 

### -, New Jersey On-Board Diagnostics (OBO) - (11M) Program I NJAC 7:27-15 I 5/21/2004 Onroad [VOC, NOx, I for Gasoline Vehicles I I I CO -' New Jersey IAsphalt Production Plants Rule 

## I NJAC 7:27-19.9 I 8/3/2010 Point I NO. New Jersey Case by Case NO. Emission Limit I NJAC 7:27-19.13 8/3/2010 

# I Point 

## I NOx Determinations (FSELs/AELs) New Jersey lEGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Hudson NO.) I N/A N/A I Point PM, NOx ! I New Jersey I EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Hudson S02) 

### i N/A N/A
I Point PM, S02

'I 

## i New Jersey 

### ! EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Mercer) I N/A 

## I N/A Point 

## I PM, S02,
, , NO. I I I New Jersey EGU - BL England ACO 

## i N/A I N/A II Point PM:S02, NO. New Jersey I EGUs - Coal-fired Boilers I NJAC 7:27-4.2, 8/3/2010 Point I PM,502, 

## I 10.2,19.4 NO. New Jersey IEGU5. Oil and Gas Fired I NJAC 7:27-4.2, 8/3/2010 Point NO. 10.2,19.4 New Jersey !Glass Manufacturing NJAC 7:27-19.10 8/3/2010 Point NO. , New Jersey High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) Program NJAC 7:27-19.29 8/3/2010 I Point 

## I S02' NO. I New Jersey 'ICI Boiler Rule 2009 NJAC 7:27-19.7 8/3/2010 I Point I NO. New Jersey Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) NJAC 7:27-19.13 8/3/2010 

# 1 Point NOx NO. portion I New Jersey [Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) PM II NJAC 7:27-19.13 8/3/2010 Point PM ] portion 

### I New Jersey Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) N/A 

### I N/A Point New Jersey NO. Budget Program (SIP Call) NJAC 7:27-27.31 5/22/2001 Point NO. New Jersey NO. RACT Rule (2006) I NJAC 7:27-27.19 7/31/2007**POln~** I .Il.re.:l , ' New**Jersey~USEPA** CTGs (4 categories) I NJAC 7:27-16.7 8/3/2010 Point 

### I VOC New Jersey lVOC Stationary Storage Tank Measures I NJAC 7:27-16.2 I 8/3/2010 Point VOCPM2.5 Control Measure Summary, 2002 Base Year Inventory I ! 1 L.ast Updated 7/29/11 I New Jersey Administrative I , I j EPA

Approval i 

### I I Sector I I 

# I Pollutant, I Code lNJAC\ I 

## I New Jersey I Low Sulfur Distillate and Residual Fuel .NJAC 7:27-27.9 

### I TBD Point and S02, NOx I Strateoies i , I I 1 Area \ New Jersey I Solvent Cleaning i NJAC 7:27-16.6 I 7/2/2004 Point and I 

### voe I Area New Jersey I Sewage and Sludge Incinerators I NJAC 7:27-19.28\ 8/3/2010 

## I Point 

## I NO x 

# ..