Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74421 

receive a grant because they would be 

able to meet the costs of compliance 

using the funds provided under this 

program and with any matching funds 

provided by private-sector partners. 

The Secretary invites comments from 

small nonprofit organizations and small 

LEAs as to whether they believe this 

proposed regulatory action would have 

a significant economic impact on them 

and, if so, requests evidence to support 

that belief. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/ 

a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table we 

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this regulatory action. This 

table provides our best estimate of the 

changes in annual monetized transfers 

as a result of this regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

from the Federal Government to LEAs 

and nonprofit organizations. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

[In millions] 

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized 

Transfers.

$140.9 million. 

From Whom To 

Whom? 

From the Federal 

Government to 

LEAs and nonprofit 

organizations. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The requirements and selection 

criteria proposed in this notice will 

require the collection of information 

that is subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The burden 

associated with the i3 program was 

approved by OMB under OMB Control 

Number 1855–0021, which expires on 

October 31, 2013. These proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would allow the 

Department to improve the design of the 

i3 program to better achieve its purposes 

and goals. However, the revisions do not 

change the number of applications an 

organization may submit or the burden 

that an applicant would otherwise incur 

in the development and submission of 

a grant application under the i3 

program. Therefore, the Department 

expects that this proposed regulatory 

action will not affect the total burden of 

hours. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

feature at this site, you can limit your 

search to documents published by the 

Department. 

Dated: December 11, 2012. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30199 Filed 12–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2010–0482; [FRL–9762–2]] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans for 

PM2.5; New Jersey; Attainment 

Demonstration, Reasonably Available 

Control Measures; Base and Projection 

Year Emission Inventories, and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on 

New Jersey’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision for attaining the 1997 fine 

particle (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS), which was 

submitted to EPA on April 1, 2009. EPA 

is proposing to fully approve elements 

of the New Jersey SIP for the New Jersey 

portion of two nonattainment areas in 

the State: The New York-N. New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT, PM2.5

nonattainment area, and the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE, 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

EPA is taking action on several 

elements of the SIP, including proposed 

approval of New Jersey’s attainment 

demonstration and motor-vehicle 

emissions budgets used for 

transportation conformity purposes, as 

well as the Reasonably Available 

Control Technology and Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACT/ 

RACM) analysis, and base-year and 

projection-year modeling emission 

inventories. 

This action is being taken in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act and 

the Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule issued by EPA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 14, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R02–OAR–2010–0482 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 212–637–3901. 

4. Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official business hours is 

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

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

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2010– 

0482. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74422 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through at 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The at 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through at 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in at www.regulations.gov 

or in hard copy at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air 

Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the contact listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Raymond Forde 

(forde.raymond@epa.gov) concerning 

emission inventories and Kenneth 

Fradkin (fradkin.kenneth@epa.gov) 

concerning other portions of the SIP 

revision, Air Programs Branch, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4249. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. Designation History 

B. Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule 

C. Determinations of Attainment 

III. What is included in New Jersey’s 

attainment plan? 

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

attainment plan submittal? 

A. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Emission Inventory Requirements 

a. 2002 Modeling Base Year 

b. Modeling Projection Years 

c. Projection Methodology 

i. Major Point Sources 

(1) Electric Generating Units (EGUs) 

(2) Non-Electric Generating Units (NonEGUs) 

ii. Area Sources 

iii. Non-Road Mobile Sources 

iv. On-Road Mobile Sources 

2. Pollutants Addressed 

3. Modeling 

B. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 

C. Reasonably Available Control 

Technology/Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACT/RACM) 

1. PM2.5 RACT 

2. PM2.5 RACM 

3. RACT/RACM Conclusion 

D. Contingency Measures 

E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

V. What is EPA’s proposed action? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) is proposing to fully approve 

elements of New Jersey’s SIP 

submission (PM2.5 attainment plan), 

which the State submitted to EPA on 

April 1, 2009, for attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for the New Jersey 

portion of the New York-N. New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT, PM2.5

nonattainment area (Northern New 

Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area), and 

the New Jersey portion of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE, 

PM2.5 nonattainment area (Southern 

New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area). 

This PM2.5 attainment plan includes 

New Jersey’s attainment demonstration, 

motor-vehicle emissions budgets used 

for transportation conformity purposes, 

analysis of Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) and 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM), base-year and projection-year 

modeling emission inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

EPA is not making a determination at 

this time on whether the emission 

reductions from the contingency 

measures satisfy the requirements of 

section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). Because EPA has determined 

that the areas have attained by the 

required attainment date in separate 

actions (75 FR 69589 and 77 FR 28782), 

no contingency measures for failure to 

attain by this date need to be 

implemented and further EPA action is 

unnecessary. 

New Jersey provided technical 

supplements to the attainment plan on 

December 17, 2009 and June 29, 2010 

that provided additional information 

regarding the emission inventories, 

control measures, and contingency 

measures in the State’s attainment plan. 

EPA has determined that elements of 

New Jersey’s PM2.5 attainment plan meet 

the applicable requirements of the CAA, 

as described in the Clean Air Fine 

Particle Implementation Rule issued by 

EPA on April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20586). 

EPA is proposing approval of New 

Jersey’s attainment demonstration, 

motor-vehicle emissions budgets used 

for transportation conformity purposes, 

as well as the RACT/RACM analysis and 

base-year and projection-year modeling 

emission inventories. EPA’s analysis 

and findings are discussed in this 

proposed rulemaking. In addition, the 

technical support document (TSD) for 

this proposal is available on-line at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA– 

R02–OAR–2010–0482. The TSD 

provides additional explanation of 

EPA’s analysis supporting this proposal. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. Designation History 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA 

established the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

including an annual standard of 15.0 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations and a 24- 

hour (or daily) standard of 65 mg/m3

based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 

EPA established the standards based on 

significant evidence and numerous 

health studies demonstrating that 

serious health effects are associated 

with exposures to PM2.5. 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the 

CAA to designate areas throughout the 

United States as attaining or not 

attaining the NAAQS; this designation 

process is described in section 107(d)(1) 

of the CAA. On January 5, 2005, EPA 

promulgated initial air-quality 

designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74423 

(70 FR 944), which became effective on 

April 5, 2005, based on air-quality 

monitoring data for calendar years 

2001–2003. 

The Northern and Southern New 

Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment areas, which 

are the subjects of this proposed 

rulemaking, are included in the list of 

areas not attaining the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. The Northern New Jersey PM2.5

nonattainment area consists of the 

following counties in the State of New 

Jersey: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, 

Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, 

Somerset, and Union Counties. The 

Southern New Jersey PM2.5

nonattainment area consists of the 

following counties: Burlington, Camden, 

and Gloucester Counties in the State of 

New Jersey. 

Additional information concerning 

the designation history can be found in 

the TSD. 

B. Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule 

On April 25, 2007, EPA issued the 

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (72 FR 

20586). The Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule (PM2.5

Implementation Rule) describes the 

CAA framework and requirements for 

developing state implementation plans 

for areas designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. An attainment 

plan must include a demonstration that 

a nonattainment area will meet the 

applicable NAAQS within the 

timeframe provided in the statute. This 

demonstration must include modeling 

(40 CFR 51.1007) that is performed in 

accordance with EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on 

the use of Models and Other Analyses 

for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze’’ (EPA–454/B–07–002, 

April 2007). It must also include 

supporting technical analyses and 

descriptions of all relevant adopted 

federal, state, and local regulations and 

control measures that have been 

adopted in order to provide attainment 

by the proposed attainment date. 

For the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, an 

attainment plan must show that a 

nonattainment area will attain the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as 

practicable, but within five years of 

designation (i.e. attainment date of April 

2010 based on air quality data for 2007– 

2009). If the area is not expected to meet 

the NAAQS by April 2010, a state may 

request to extend the attainment date by 

one to five years based upon the severity 

of the nonattainment problem or the 

feasibility of implementing control 

measures (CAA Section 172(a)(2)) in the 

specific area. 

For each nonattainment area, the state 

must demonstrate that it has adopted all 

RACM, including all RACT for the 

appropriate emission sources needed to 

provide for attainment of the PM2.5

standards in the area ‘‘as expeditiously 

as practicable.’’ The PM2.5

Implementation Rule provided guidance 

for making these RACT/RACM 

determinations (see Section IV.C below). 

Any measures that are necessary to meet 

these requirements that are not already 

federally promulgated or in an EPAapproved part of the state’s SIP must be 

submitted as part of a state’s attainment 

plan. Any state measures must meet the 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements, and, in particular, must 

be federally enforceable. 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule also 

included guidance on other elements of 

a state’s attainment plan, including, but 

not limited to, the pollutants that states 

must address in their submission, as 

well as emission inventories, 

contingency measures, and motorvehicle emissions budgets used for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Additional information concerning 

the PM2.5 Implementation Rule can be 

found in the TSD. 

C. Determinations of Attainment 

EPA makes two different types of 

attainment determinations for 

nonattainment areas. The first, a 

Determination of Attainment by the 

attainment date, is a determination of 

whether the area attained the NAAQS as 

of the area’s applicable attainment 

deadline, which for PM2.5, is required by 

CAA section 179(c). The second is a 

Determination of Attainment for 

purposes of suspending a State’s 

obligation to submit certain attainmentrelated planning SIP requirements 

(Clean Data Determination) (see 40 CFR 

51.1004(c)). A Clean Data Determination 

and the suspension of requirements 

continue so long as the area continues 

to attain the NAAQS. 

EPA finalized determinations of 

attainment in the November 15, 2010 

Federal Register (75 FR 69589) that the 

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, 

NY-NJ-CT, PM2.5 nonattainment area 

(the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment 

area), had attained the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, and had attained the NAAQS 

by its required attainment date of April 

5, 2010. The determinations were based 

upon complete, quality assured, quality 

controlled, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data that showed that the 

area had monitored attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007–2009 

monitoring period by its attainment date 

of April 5, 2010. Ambient air monitoring 

data for 2010, 2011, and the first half of 

2012 are consistent with continued 

attainment. 

As part of this rulemaking, EPA 

proposes to add regulatory language 

under Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations concerning 

the Determination of Attainment for the 

NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area by 

the April 5, 2010 attainment date. 

Although EPA had included regulatory 

language under Part 52, Subpart FF in 

the November 15, 2010 Federal Register 

(75 FR 69589) that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area had attained the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA had 

inadvertently not included appropriate 

regulatory language that the area 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 by the 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. EPA will amend Part 52 as 

indicated if this proposed action is 

finalized. 

On May 16, 2012, EPA finalized 

determinations of attainment in the 

Federal Register (77 FR 28782) that the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE, 

PM2.5 nonattainment area, referred to 

this point forward as the PA-NJ-DE 

PM2.5 nonattainment area, had attained 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and had 

attained the NAAQS by its required 

attainment date of April 5, 2010. The 

determinations were based upon 

complete, quality assured, quality 

controlled, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data that showed that the 

area had attained the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, based on ambient air 

monitoring data for the 2007–2009 and 

2008–2010 monitoring periods. Ambient 

air monitoring data for 2011 and the 

first half of 2012 are consistent with 

continued attainment. 

Under the provisions of EPA’s PM2.5

Implementation Rule (40 CFR 

51.1004(c)), the requirements for New 

Jersey to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated RACM, 

reasonable further progress plan, and 

contingency measures related to 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for 

the Northern New Jersey PM2.5

nonattainment area and Southern New 

Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area are 

suspended for as long as the areas 

continue to attain the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, given the determinations of 

attainment for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Although the requirements are 

suspended for the elements listed above 

for the state’s attainment plan, and the 

state may withdraw the submitted 

elements, EPA proposes to approve the 

attainment demonstration, as well as the 

RACT/RACM analysis, which are 

approvable based on EPA’s analysis. See 

sections IV and V regarding EPA’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74424 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1New Jersey submitted the Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration SIP on October 29, 2007. 

analysis and the approvable elements of 

New Jersey’s attainment plan submittal. 

III. What is included in New Jersey’s 

attainment plan? 

In accordance with Section 172(c) of 

the CAA and with the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the attainment 

plan submitted by the State for the 

Northern and Southern New Jersey 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas included: 

emission inventories for the plan’s base 

year (2002) and projection year (2009); 

an attainment demonstration showing 

how the two nonattainment areas met 

the required April 5, 2010 attainment 

date for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; 

an analyses of future-year emissions 

reductions and air-quality 

improvements expected to result from 

national and local programs and from 

new measures to meet RACT/RACM 

requirements; adopted emissionreduction measures with schedules for 

implementation; motor-vehicle 

emissions budgets for the nonattainment 

year; and contingency measures. 

To analyze future-year emissions 

reductions and air-quality 

improvements, New Jersey utilized the 

regional air quality modeling that was 

conducted for ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze. New Jersey first 

introduced this modeling in its 8-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration1 for 

modeling the ozone problem in the 

northeastern United States. The ozone 

season (May 1–September 30) 

photochemical modeling was combined 

with additional months of air quality 

modeling to predict attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

modeling was performed in accordance 

with EPA’s modeling guidance (EPA– 

454/B–07–002, April 2007). 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of New 

Jersey’s attainment plan submittal? 

A. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Emission Inventory Requirements 

States are required under the CAA 

(section 172(c)(3)) to develop emissions 

inventories of point, area, and mobile 

sources for their attainment 

demonstrations. These inventories 

provide a detailed accounting of all 

emissions and emission sources by 

precursor or pollutant. In addition, 

inventories are used to model air quality 

to demonstrate that attainment of the 

NAAQS can be met by the deadline, 

which in this case is April 5, 2010 for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Emissions 

inventory guidance was provided in the 

April 1999 document ‘‘Emissions 

Inventory Guidance for Implementation 

of Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS 

and Regional Haze Regulations,’’ (EPA– 

454/R–99–006), which was updated in 

November 2005 (EPA–454/R–05–001). 

Emissions reporting requirements were 

provided in the 2002 Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) (67 FR 

39602). On December 17, 2008 (73 FR 

76539) EPA promulgated the Air 

Emissions Reporting Requirements 

(AERR) to update emissions reporting 

requirements in the CERR, and to 

harmonize, consolidate and simplify 

data reporting by states. 

In accordance with the AERR and the 

November 2005 guidance, the PM2.5

Implementation Rule required states to 

submit inventory information on 

directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors and any additional inventory 

information needed to support an 

attainment demonstration and (where 

applicable) a Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP) plan. 

PM2.5 is comprised of filterable and 

condensable emissions. Condensable 

particulate matter (CPM) can comprise a 

significant percentage of direct PM2.5

emissions from certain sources, and is 

required to be included in national 

emission inventories based on emission 

factors. Test Methods 201A and 202 are 

available for source-specific 

measurement of condensable emissions. 

However, the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule acknowledged that there were 

issues and concerns related to 

availability and implementation of these 

test methods as well as uncertainties in 

existing data for condensable PM2.5. In 

recognition of these concerns, EPA 

established a transition period during 

which EPA could assess possible 

revisions to available test methods and 

to allow time for States to update 

emission inventories as needed to 

address direct PM2.5, including 

condensable emissions. Because of the 

time required for this assessment, EPA 

recognized that States would be limited 

in how to effectively address CPM 

emissions, and established a period of 

transition, up to January 1, 2011, during 

which State submissions for PM2.5 were 

not required to address CPM emissions. 

Amendments to these test methods were 

proposed on March 25, 2009 (74 FR 

12969), and finalized on December 21, 

2010 (75 FR 80118). The amendments to 

Method 201A added a particle-sizing 

device for PM2.5 sampling, and the 

amendments to Method 202 revised the 

sample collection and recovery 

procedures of the method to reduce the 

formation of reaction artifacts that could 

lead to inaccurate measurements of 

CPM. 

PM2.5 submissions made during the 

transition period are not required to 

address CPM emissions, however, States 

may, if they elect, establish source 

emission limits that include CPM for 

submittals made before January 1, 2011. 

In July 2008, Earth Justice filed a 

petition requesting reconsideration of 

EPA’s transition period for CPM 

emissions provided in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule. In January 2009, 

EPA decided to allow states that have 

not previously addressed CPM to 

continue to exclude CPM for PSD 

permitting during the transition period. 

Today’s action reflects a review of New 

Jersey’s submittal based on current EPA 

guidance as described in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule. New Jersey has 

included CPM emissions, which were 

added to filterable emissions, when 

determining final direct PM2.5 emissions 

for the 2002 Base Year and 2009 

Projection Year PM2.5 inventories. 

a. 2002 Modeling Base Year 

EPA proposed to approve New 

Jersey’s 2002 Base Year inventories on 

May 9, 2006, (71 FR 26895) and 

approved the emission inventories on 

July 10, 2006 (71 FR 38770). The reader 

is referred to these rulemakings and the 

associated TSD for additional 

information concerning the emission 

inventories and EPA’s approval. 

For purposes of developing a 2009 

projection year inventory, New Jersey 

also developed a modeling base year 

inventory. Tables 1A and 1B below 

show the 2002 modeling base year 

PM2.5, nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emission inventories for 

the Northern and Southern New Jersey 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74425 

2EPA’s follow-up memo ‘‘8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards Implementation— 

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)’’, dated August 

2006; ‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models and Other 

Analyses for Demonstration Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze’’, 

dated April 2007; ‘‘Guidance for Growth Factors, 

Projections, and Control Strategies for the 15 

Percent Rate of Progress Plans’’, dated March 1993; 

‘‘Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate of Progress Plan 

and Attainment Demonstration’’, dated January 

1994; Emission Inventory Improvement Program 

guidance document titled ‘‘Volume X, Emission 

Projections’’, dated December 1999. 

TABLE 1A—2002 NORTHERN NEW JERSEY PM2.5 MODELING BASE YEAR INVENTORY

[In tons/year] 

Pollutant Point Area Nonroad 

mobile 

Onroad 

mobile Total 

PM2.5 .................................................................................... 2,790 8,636 2,824 1,547 15,797 

NOX ...................................................................................... 34,432 18,428 42,661 102,997 198,518 

SO2 ....................................................................................... 37,750 6,242 6,654 2,244 52,890 

TABLE 1B—2002 SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY PM2.5 MODELING BASE YEAR INVENTORY

[In tons/year] 

Pollutant Point Area Nonroad 

mobile 

Onroad 

mobile Total 

PM2.5 .................................................................................... 940 2,218 789 537 4,484 

NOX ...................................................................................... 6,682 3,624 8,207 29,986 48,499 

SO2 ....................................................................................... 5,867 1,340 4,594 705 12,506 

b. Modeling Projection Years 

A projection of 2002 PM2.5, NOX, and 

SO2 anthropogenic emissions to 2009 is 

required to determine the emission 

reductions needed for inventory 

attainment demonstration. The 2009 

modeling projection year emission 

inventories are calculated by 

multiplying the 2002 base year 

inventory by factors which estimate 

growth from 2002 to 2009. A specific 

growth factor for each source type in the 

inventory is required since sources 

typically grow at different rates. 

c. Projection Methodology 

i. Major Point Sources 

(1) Electric Generating Units (EGUs) 

For this point source sector, the 

projected emissions inventories were 

first calculated by estimating growth in 

each source category. As appropriate, 

the 2002 emissions inventory was used 

as the base for applying factors to 

account for inventory growth. The point 

source inventory was grown from the 

2002 inventory to 2009 for each facility 

using growth factors utilized in EPA’s 

Integrated Planning Model (IPM) model 

to forecast growth based on the 

following variables/factors: Electric 

demand; natural gas, oil and coal supply 

forecasts; pollution control and 

performance; capacity cost and 

performance, and replacement of older 

less efficient and polluting power plants 

with newer more efficient units to meet 

future growth and state by state NOX

and SO2 caps. 

(2) Non-Electric Generating Units (NonEGUs) 

For this point source sector, the 

projected emissions inventories were 

first calculated by estimating growth in 

each source category. As appropriate, 

the 2002 emissions inventory was used 

as the base for applying factors to 

account for inventory growth. The point 

source inventory was grown from the 

2002 inventory to 2009 for each facility 

based on source classification codes 

using growth factors generated from 

EPA’s Economic Growth Analysis 

System (EGAS) version 5.0, United 

States Department of Energy’s (USDOE) 

Annual Energy Outlook Projections 

(AEO) 2005, and state specific 

population and employment data, 

where appropriate. Since these 

methodologies and growth indicators 

are some of the preferred growth 

indicators as outlined in EPA 

Guidance,2 EPA proposes that New 

Jersey’s methodology for projecting 

point sources to be acceptable. 

ii. Area Sources 

For the area source category, New 

Jersey projected emissions from 2002 to 

2009 using growth factors generated 

from USDOE AEO 2007, state specific 

population, employment data, and other 

state specific data where appropriate. 

This is in accordance with EPA’s 

recommended growth indicators for 

projecting emissions for area source 

categories as outlined in EPA Guidance. 

Since these methodologies and growth 

indicators are some of the preferred 

growth indicators outlined in EPA 

Guidance,2 EPA proposes to find New 

Jersey’s methodology for projecting area 

sources to be acceptable. 

iii. Non-Road Mobile Sources 

Non-road vehicle and equipment 

emissions were projected from 2002 to 

2009 using the EPA’s National Mobile 

Inventory Model (NMIM) 2005. NMIM 

2005 contains growth factors, which are 

based on the historical trends in 

nonroad equipment activity. This model 

was used to calculate past and future 

emission inventories for all nonroad 

equipment categories except 

commercial marine vessels (CMV), 

locomotives and aircrafts. Emissions 

were determined on a monthly basis 

and combined to provide annual 

emission estimates. 

Aircraft, locomotives and CMV 

emissions were projected based on 

combined growth and control factors 

from USEPA Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) by determining the level of 

emissions and their associated ratios 

between 2002 base and 2025 projection 

year. From this point, the State 

determined the ratio of emissions 

between 2002 and 2009 projection year 

using linear interpolation. The ratios 

between 2002 and 2009 were 

determined and then multiplied by the 

2002 base year to determine 2009 

projection year emissions. 

Since these methodologies and 

growth indicators are some of the 

preferred growth indicators outlined in 

EPA Guidance, EPA proposes to find 

New Jersey’s methodology for projecting 

non-road mobile sources to be 

acceptable. 

iv. Onroad Mobile Sources 

For the onroad mobile source 

category, the primary indicator and tool 

for developing on-road mobile growth 

and expected emissions are vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) and USEPA’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74426 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

mobile emissions model Mobile 6.2.03 

(MOBILE6.2). The 2009 pollutant 

emission factors were generated by 

MOBILE6.2 (with the associated 

controlled measures applied, where 

appropriate) and applied to the monthly 

VMT projections provided by the State. 

Monthly emissions were then combined 

to develop annual emission estimates. 

Since these methodologies and growth 

indicators are some of the preferred 

growth indicators outlined in EPA 

Guidance, EPA proposes to find New 

Jersey’s methodology for projecting onroad mobile sources to be acceptable. 

Based on EPA’s guidance, the 2009 

modeling inventories are complete and 

approvable. A more detailed discussion 

on how the emission inventories were 

reviewed and the results are presented 

in the TSD. These documents provide 

further details and references on how 

projections were performed. 

Tables 2A and 2B show the 2009 

modeling projection emission 

inventories controlled after 2002 using 

the aforementioned growth indicators/ 

methodologies for the Northern and 

Southern New Jersey PM2.5

nonattainment areas. 

TABLE 2A—2009 NORTHERN NEW JERSEY PM2.5 MODELING PROJECTION YEAR INVENTORY (CONTROLLED) 

[In tons/year] 

Pollutant Point Area Nonroad 

mobile 

Onroad 

mobile Total 

PM2.5 .................................................................................... 3,169 8,332 2,295 956 14,752 

NOX ...................................................................................... 13,378 16,502 33,714 50,097 113,691 

SO2 ....................................................................................... 18,616 6,208 1,530 457 26,811 

TABLE 2B—2009 SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY PM2.5 MODELING PROJECTION YEAR INVENTORY (CONTROLLED) 

[In tons/year] 

Pollutant Point Area Nonroad 

mobile 

Onroad 

mobile Total 

PM2.5 .................................................................................... 1,265 2,073 690 308 4,336 

NOX ...................................................................................... 5,479 3,284 7,156 15,018 30,927 

SO2 ....................................................................................... 3,289 1,331 982 110 5,712 

2. Pollutants Addressed 

In accordance with the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, New Jersey’s 

PM2.5 attainment plan evaluates 

emissions of direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX

in the Northern and Southern New 

Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment areas. New 

Jersey’s SIP submission indicated that it 

agreed with EPA policy where volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) and 

ammonia are not presumed to be PM2.5

attainment plan precursors. 

3. Modeling 

All attainment demonstrations must 

include modeling that is performed in 

accordance with EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on 

the Use of Models and Other Analyses 

for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze’’ (EPA–454/B–07–002, 

April 2007). Modeling may be based on 

national (e.g., EPA), regional (e.g., 

Ozone Transport Commission), local 

modeling, or a combination thereof, if 

appropriate. A brief description of 

modeling used to support New Jersey’s 

attainment demonstration follows. For 

more detailed information about this 

modeling, please refer to the TSD. 

Ambient PM2.5 typically includes both 

primary PM2.5 (directly emitted) and 

secondary PM2.5 (e.g., sulfate and nitrate 

formed by chemical reactions in the 

atmosphere). Some of the 

physicochemical processes leading to 

formation of secondary PM2.5 may take 

hours or days, as may some of the 

removal processes. Thus, some sources 

of secondary PM2.5 may be sources 

outside of the nonattainment area. To 

cover a sufficient geographic area to take 

these processes into account and to use 

state resources more efficiently, the 

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) on 

behalf of its member states (which 

include New Jersey, New York, 

Connecticut, Delaware, and 

Pennsylvania) performed photochemical 

grid modeling for their multi-state 

nonattainment areas. 

The OTC Modeling Committee, which 

coordinated preparing and running the 

photochemical grid model, chose the 

Community Multi-scale Air Quality 

(CMAQ) model as the photochemical 

grid model of choice. Since the model 

predicts both ozone, and PM2.5 ambient 

concentrations, the same parameters 

were used in the modeling runs used to 

demonstrate attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS. EPA concurs that this model is 

appropriate for modeling the formation 

and distribution of PM2.5. The model 

domain covered almost all of the eastern 

United States, with a high-resolution 

grid covering the states in the northeast 

ozone transport region, including New 

Jersey. 

Under the direction of the OTC 

Modeling Committee, several states and 

modeling centers performed the regional 

modeling runs and contributed to the 

regional modeling effort, including the 

New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), 

the Ozone Research Center at the 

University of Medicine & Dentistry of 

NJ/Rutgers (UMDNJ/ORC), the 

University of Maryland (UMD), the 

Northeast States for Coordinated Air 

Management (NESCAUM), and the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management 

Agency (MARAMA). The NYSDEC ran 

the CMAQ model for the May 1 through 

September 30 ozone season, which was 

supplemented by modeling runs 

performed by UMDNJ/ORC (March and 

April), NESCAUM (October, November, 

December), and the UMD (January, 

February), for the purposes of 

determining PM2.5 attainment. 

The OTC Modeling Committee used 

annual 2002 meteorology for the 

modeling analysis. 2002 was the base 

year for the attainment plans and the 

year of the emission inventory used in 

the base year modeling. The OTC 

Modeling Committee used a Mesoscale 

Meteorological model, (MM5) version 

3.6, a weather forecast model developed 

by Pennsylvania State University and 

the National Center for Atmospheric 

Research for the weather conditions 

used by the photochemical grid model. 

Details about how the states used the 

MM5 model are in Appendix B3 of New 

Jersey’s SIP submittal. 

States across the eastern United States 

provided emissions information from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74427 

their sources to be used in the model. 

MARAMA collected and quality assured 

the states’ emissions data and processed 

these data for the photochemical grid 

model to use. The states also included 

the control measures that were already 

adopted as well as the control measures 

that the state was committing to adopt 

from a list of ‘‘Beyond On the Way’’ 

(BOTW) control measures, which would 

provide additional emission reductions. 

Emissions data for the model from 

outside the Northeast was obtained from 

other regional planning organizations. 

States provided projected emissions for 

2009 that account for emission changes 

due to regulations the states plan to 

implement prior to 2009, as well as 

expected growth. 

Table 3 below lists the control 

measures that New Jersey took into 

account in the projected 2009 BOTW 

CMAQ run. See the TSD for the listing 

of the BOTW measures that would be 

implemented in other states in the 

Ozone Transport Region (OTR), which 

New Jersey is a part of, to achieve 

benefits in 2009. Some states in the OTR 

have chosen to adopt different control 

strategies than New Jersey. 

TABLE 3—MODELED CONTROL MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE 2009 BOTW MODEL RUN FOR NEW JERSEY

Pre-2002 with Benefits Achieved Post-2002—On the Books 

Federal 

Residential Woodstove New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Beyond Stage II 

Tier 1 Vehicle Program 

National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV) 

Tier 2 Vehicle Program/Low Sulfur Fuels 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV) Defeat Device Settlement 

HDDV Engine Standards 

Nonroad Diesel Engines 

Large Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines over 19 kilowatts 

Recreational Vehicles (includes Snowmobiles, Off-Highway Motorcycles, and All-Terrain Vehicles) 

Diesel Marine Engines over 37 kilowatts 

Phase 2 Standards for Small Spark-Ignition Handheld Engines at or below 19 kilowatts 

Phase 2 Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Non-Handheld Engines at or below 

19 kilowatts 

Acid Rain 

Post-2002—On the Books 

New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort 

Consumer Products 2005 

Architectural Coatings 2005 

Portable Fuel Containers 2005 (Area Source Only) 

Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing 

Solvent Cleaning 

NOX RACT Rule (2006) 

New Jersey Heavy Duty Diesel Rules Including ‘‘Not-To-Exceed’’ (NTE) Requirements 

New Jersey Only 

Stage I and Stage II (Gasoline Transfer Operations) 

On-Board Diagnostics (OBD)—Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program for Gasoline Vehicles 

Federal 

USEPA Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) Standards 

CAIR (NOX Controls in 2009 Only) 

Refinery Consent Decrees (Sunoco, Valero, and ConocoPhillips) 

Post-2002—Beyond the Way 

New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort 

Consumer Products 2009 Amendments 

Portable Fuel Containers 2009 Amendments (Area Source Only) 

Asphalt Paving 

Adhesives and Sealants 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boiler Rule 2009 

New Jersey Only 

New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program 

Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Mercer) 

Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Hudson NOX) 

NOX emission reductions from the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) were 

included in the list of control measures 

that New Jersey took into account in the 

projected 2009 BOTW CMAQ run. EPA 

published CAIR on May 12, 2005 (76 FR 

70093), to address the interstate 

transport requirements of the CAA. EPA 

approved New Jersey rules that allowed 

the State to allocate NOx allowances to 

New Jersey sources beginning in 2009, 

on October 1, 2007 (72 FR 55666). 

As originally promulgated, CAIR 

requires significant reductions in 

emissions of SO2 and NOx to limit the 

interstate transport of these pollutants. 

In 2008 the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC 

Circuit) vacated and remanded CAIR, 

and the CAIR FIPs (71 FR 25328, April 

28, 2006) finding it to be inconsistent 

with the requirements of the CAA. 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(DC Cir. 2008). Following EPA’s request 

for re-hearing, the court remanded the 

rule to EPA without vacatur, finding 

that ‘‘allowing CAIR to remain in effect 

until it is replaced by a rule consistent 

with [the court’s] opinion would at least 

temporarily preserve the environmental 

values covered by CAIR.’’ North 

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

CAIR and the CAIR FIPs remained in 

place and enforceable through the April 

5, 2010, attainment date. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74428 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3The document is available at http:// 

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

In response to the court’s decision, 

EPA issued a new rule to address 

interstate transport of emissions, 

‘‘Federal Implementation Plans: 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP 

Approvals: Final Rule’’ (known as the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or 

Transport Rule). 76 FR 48208, August 8, 

2011. In the Transport Rule, EPA 

finalized regulatory changes to sunset 

(i.e., terminate) CAIR and the CAIR FIPs 

for control periods in 2012 and beyond. 

See 76 FR 48322. 

On December 30, 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit issued an order addressing the 

status of the Transport Rule and CAIR 

in response to motions filed by 

numerous parties seeking a stay of the 

Transport Rule pending judicial review. 

In that order, the DC Circuit stayed the 

Transport Rule pending the court’s 

resolution of the petitions for review of 

the rule. EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated 

cases). The court also indicated that 

EPA is expected to continue to 

administer CAIR in the interim until the 

court rules on the petitions for review 

of the Transport Rule. 

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

vacated the Transport Rule, EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11– 

1302, ruling that EPA had exceeded the 

agency’s statutory authority. However, 

the decision on the Transport Rule does 

not disturb EPA’s determination that it 

is appropriate to move forward with this 

proposed action. This action proposes to 

approve an attainment plan that 

demonstrated that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE 

PM2.5 nonattainment area would attain 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 2010, 

which it did, as discussed in section 

II.C. The air quality analysis conducted 

for the Transport Rule demonstrates that 

the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area 

and the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment 

area would be able to attain the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS even in the 

absence of CAIR or the Transport Rule. 

See Appendix B to the Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 

Document for the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule.3 Nothing in the D.C. 

Circuit’s August 2012 decision disturbs 

or calls into question that conclusion or 

the validity of the air quality analysis on 

which it is based. More importantly, the 

Transport Rule is not relevant to this 

action. The Transport Rule only 

addresses emissions in 2012 and 

beyond. As such, neither the Transport 

Rule itself, nor the vacatur of the 

Transport Rule, is relevant to the 

question addressed in this proposal 

notice. The purpose of this action is to 

determine whether the attainment plan 

submitted by New Jersey is sufficient to 

bring the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE 

PM2.5 nonattainment area into 

attainment by the April 2010 attainment 

date, a date before the Transport Rule 

was even promulgated. 

Similarly, the status of CAIR after the 

April 2010 attainment date is also not 

relevant to this action since CAIR was 

in place and enforceable through the 

attainment date. CAIR was an 

enforceable control measure applicable 

to affected sources in the area, as well 

as sources throughout the Eastern 

United States. As such, the current 

status of CAIR is irrelevant to and does 

not impact our conclusion that the 

attainment plan should be approved. 

Moreover, in its August 2012 decision, 

the Court also ordered EPA to continue 

implementing CAIR. See EME Homer 

City, slip op. at 60. For these reasons, 

neither the current status of CAIR nor 

the current status of the Transport Rule 

affects any of the criteria for proposed 

approval of this SIP revision. 

The control measures listed in Table 

3 does not include additional measures, 

which the state had planned to 

implement by 2010, that would result in 

additional emissions reductions of 

direct PM2.5 and precursors. These 

additional measures, shown in Table 4 

below, which were not included in the 

photochemical grid modeling, and 

which have been subsequently adopted 

by the State, were submitted by New 

Jersey to provide additional evidence 

that the New Jersey associated 

nonattainment areas would attain the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the required 

April 5, 2010 attainment date. 

TABLE 4—CONTROL MEASURES ADOPTED BY NEW JERSEY NOT CAPTURED IN THE 2009 BOTW MODEL RUN

Federal 

New Nonroad Engine Standards 

Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder 

Energy Conservation Standards for New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family High-Rise Residential Buildings 

State 

Diesel Idling Rule Changes 

Diesel Smoke (I/M Cutpoint) Rule Changes 

Case-by-Case NOX Limit Determinations (Facility-Specific Emission Limits/Alternative Emission Limits) 

Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) NOX Rule 

New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle Program from Fleet Turnover Post 2009 

On-road Fleet Turnover and Non-Road Equipment Turnover Post 2009 

Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Hudson SO2) 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

Asphalt Production Plants Rule 

Glass Manufacturing 

High Electric Demand Day (HEDD Program) 

Oil and Gas Fired Electric Generating Units (EGU’s) Rule (Portion Not Modeled from Consent Decrees) 

Sewage Sludge Incinerators 

NOX RACT Rule 2006 (Portion Not Modeled) 

ICI Boiler Rule 2009 (Portion Not Modeled) 

Low Sulfur Distillate and Residual Fuel Strategies 

Smoke Management 

In summary, New Jersey is relying on 

‘‘modeled’’ control measures to 

demonstrate that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE 

PM2.5 nonattainment area would reach 

attainment by April 5, 2010, and has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74429 

4MATS is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

scram001/modelingapps_mats.htm. 

also included additional ‘‘nonmodeled’’ measures as additional 

support for attainment and continued 

attainment. 

EPA provided guidance to states and 

tribes for projecting PM2.5

concentrations using a ‘‘speciated 

modeled attainment test’’ (SMAT) 

(EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007). EPA 

also provided a software program 

(Model Attainment Test Software 

‘‘MATS’’) that allows calculation of 

future year PM2.5 design values using 

the SMAT assumptions contained in the 

modeled guidance4. MATS uses the 

following PM2.5 species: sulfate, nitrate, 

ammonium, directly emitted inorganic 

particles, elemental carbon, organic 

carbon, particle bound water, and blank 

mass (and optionally salt). Once 

modeling for a projection year and a 

base year is complete, relative response 

factors (RRFs) are computed for sulfate, 

nitrate, directly emitted inorganic 

particles, elemental carbon, and organic 

carbon. For each monitoring location, 

the quarterly RRF for a component is 

computed as the ratio of the projection 

year divided by the base year modeled 

concentration for a three-by-three array 

of modeled grid cells centered on the 

monitoring location. The projection year 

concentrations are calculated by 

multiplying quarterly base year 

concentrations by the RRF for each 

PM2.5 component. The sum of the 

estimated projection year component 

concentrations is the estimated 

projection year PM2.5 concentration. If 

future estimates of PM2.5 concentrations 

are less than the 1997 NAAQS, then the 

modeling indicates attainment of the 

standard. 

PM2.5 includes a mixture of 

components that can behave 

independently from one another (e.g., 

primary vs. secondary particles) or that 

are related to one another in a complex 

way (e.g., different secondary particles). 

Thus, it is appropriate to consider PM2.5

as the sum of its major components. As 

recommended in EPA’s modeling 

guidance, New Jersey divided PM2.5 into 

its major components and noted the 

effects of a strategy on each. The effect 

on PM2.5 was estimated as a sum of the 

effects on individual components. 

Future PM2.5 design values at specified 

monitoring sites were estimated by 

adding the future- year values of the 

seven PM2.5 (sulfates, nitrates, 

ammonium, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, particle bound water, other 

primary inorganic particulate matter) 

components. 

For the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5

nonattainment area, all future sitespecific PM2.5 design values were below 

the concentration specified in the 

NAAQS. The highest value predicted in 

the nonattainment area was from the 

monitor located on Broad Street in 

Philadelphia, PA, and the predicted 

value was 13.9 mg/m3. Therefore, the 

PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area 

passed the SMAT. 

For the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area, future site-specific 

PM2.5 design values were below the 

concentration specified in the NAAQS 

with the exception of the PS59 

monitoring site located in New York 

County. The projected 2009 value of 

15.3 mg/m3 for PS59 was within the 

weight-of-evidence (WOE) range of 

values, 14.5 mg/m3 to 15.5 mg/m3, as 

defined in the PM2.5 modeling guidance 

(EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007). 

New Jersey used a multi-analysis and 

WOE approach to support the results 

from the modeled attainment test. In 

addition to the speciated modeled 

attainment test, New Jersey presented 

the following information, which is 

further described in the TSD, to 

demonstrate attainment by April 5, 

2010: 

• Air monitoring data measured from 

2000 to 2006 at monitoring sites in both 

the PA-NJ-DE and the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment areas showed declining 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations; 

• Technical information from a New 

York State WOE presentation 

concerning the PS59 monitoring site: 

incomplete data in the third quarter of 

2003 due to construction work at the 

site, and lack of collocated speciation 

data, may have resulted in an estimate 

of PM2.5 being above the level of the 

NAAQS at the PS59 monitor; 

• Additional measures from New 

York that were not represented in the 

projection inventories for 2009 and that 

will contribute to attainment at the PS59 

monitor; and 

• Additional measures from New 

Jersey that were not included in the 

projection year inventories for 2009 that 

would likely lead to PM2.5 concentration 

below the 2009 modeled design values 

and support New Jersey’s demonstration 

of attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in its 

two multistate nonattainment areas. 

As a result of this WOE review, New 

Jersey concluded that the State of New 

Jersey, and the New Jersey associated 

nonattainment areas will attain the 1997 

p.m.2.5 NAAQS by the required 2010 

attainment date. 

Complete, quality assured, quality 

controlled, and certified air quality data 

from 2007–2009, 2008–2010, and 2009– 

2011 are available for air monitors in 

both New Jersey associated PM2.5

nonattainment areas. Under EPA’s 

modeling guidance, this data would be 

considered evidence to be weighed in a 

WOE process. 

EPA published a Federal Register (75 

FR 69589) on November 15, 2010 

finding that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area had attained the 

PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon monitored 

attainment during the 2007–2009 

monitoring period. Ambient air 

monitoring data for 2008–2010 and for 

2009–2011 show continued attainment. 

EPA had reviewed ambient air 

monitoring data for PM2.5 consistent 

with the requirements contained in 40 

CFR part 50 and recorded in the EPA 

Air Quality System (AQS) database. The 

3-year averages of the annual mean 

PM2.5 concentrations are less than the 

NAAQS of 15.0 mg/m3. Table 5 shows 

the design values by county for the NYNJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area PM2.5

monitors for the years 2001 through 

2011. Overall, county design values 

continued to decline across the 

nonattainment area through 2011. As 

shown in Table 5, the column labeled 

06–08 DV indicates that, beginning in 

2006–2008, all county design values 

have been below the NAAQS of 15.0 mg/ 

m3. 

TABLE 5—DESIGN VALUES BY COUNTY FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS FOR THE NY-NJ-CT MONITORS IN

MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER (μG/M3). THE STANDARD FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS IS 15.0 UG/M3

County 01–03 

DV 

02–04 

DV 

03–05 

DV 

04–06 

DV 

05–07 

DV 

06–08 

DV 

07–09 

DV 

08–10 

DV 

09–11 

DV 

Bronx ............................................ 15.7 15.2 15.7 15.1 15.5 14.3 13.9 12.5 11.9 

Kings ............................................ 14.7 14.2 14.6 14.0 14.0 12.9 12.2 10.8 10.3 

Nassau ......................................... 12.2 11.7 12.1 11.5 11.4 10.9 10.3 9.5 8.9 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74430 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—DESIGN VALUES BY COUNTY FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS FOR THE NY-NJ-CT MONITORS IN

MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER (μG/M3). THE STANDARD FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS IS 15.0 UG/M3— 

Continued 

County 01–03 

DV 

02–04 

DV 

03–05 

DV 

04–06 

DV 

05–07 

DV 

06–08 

DV 

07–09 

DV 

08–10 

DV 

09–11 

DV 

New York ..................................... 17.5 16.7 17.0 15.7 15.9 14.9 14.0 12.1 11.7 

Orange ......................................... 11.5 11.1 11.4 10.8 10.8 10.0 9.3 8.5 8.2 

Queens ......................................... INC 12.8 12.7 12.1 11.8 11.3 10.6 10.0 INC 

Richmond ..................................... 12.0 11.5 11.8 13.4 13.2 12.4 11.6 10.5 8.5 

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

Suffolk .......................................... 12.1 11.3 11.5 INC INC 10.5 9.7 8.9 8.4 

Westchester ................................. 12.3 11.7 11.9 11.6 11.7 11.2 10.6 9.6 9.1 

Bergen .......................................... INC 12.8 13.3 12.8 13.2 12.2 11.3 9.8 9.2 

Essex ........................................... INC 13.5 INC 13.2 13.3 INC INC INC INC 

Hudson ......................................... 14.7 14.3 14.7 14.1 14.0 14.1 13.1 11.6 11.1 

Mercer .......................................... 13.8 13.0 13.0 12.7 12.5 11.9 10.8 10.0 9.7 

Middlesex ..................................... 12.4 11.8 12.5 11.8 12.1 11.3 10.4 8.8 7.9 

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

Morris ........................................... INC 11.6 11.9 11.2 11.3 10.3 9.6 8.7 8.5 

Passaic ......................................... INC 12.9 13.1 12.6 12.9 12.3 11.3 9.8 INC 

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

Union ............................................ 15.5 15.3 15.5 14.8 14.4 13.6 12.6 11.6 11.4 

Fairfield ........................................ 13.1 12.7 13.3 13.2 13.2 12.4 11.3 10.0 9.4 

New Haven .................................. 13.9 13.4 13.5 13.0 12.8 12.2 11.4 10.3 9.6 

NM—No monitor located in county. 

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

Note: The air monitor at the Newark Willis Center station in Essex County was discontinued on July 24, 2008 due to an unexpected loss of access, and replaced with a new monitor at the Newark Firehouse. PM2.5 monitoring was established at the firehouse on May 13, 2009. The monitors in Queens and Passaic had incomplete data due to instrument malfunction, and/or insufficient sampling frequency in one quarter. 

On May 16, 2012, EPA finalized in the 

Federal Register (77 FR 28782) a 

determination that the PA–NJ–DE PM2.5

nonattainment area had attained the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon 

ambient air monitoring data for the 

2007–2009 and 2008–2010 monitoring 

periods. The 3-year averages of the 

annual mean PM2.5 concentrations are 

less than the NAAQS of 15.0 mg/m3. 

Table 6 shows the design values by 

county for the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5

nonattainment area monitors for the 

years 2001 through 2011. As shown in 

Table 6, the column labeled 04–06 DV 

indicates that ambient air monitoring 

data has been less than or equal to the 

NAAQS, beginning in 2004–2006. 

TABLE 6—DESIGN VALUES BY COUNTY FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS FOR THE PA-NJ-DE MONITORS IN

MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER (μG/M3). THE STANDARD FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS IS 15.0 μG/M3

County 01–03 

DV 

02–04 

DV 

03–05 

DV 

04–06 

DV 

05–07 

DV 

06–08 

DV 

07–09 

DV 

08–10 

DV 

09–11 

DV 

New Castle ................................... 16.2 15.3 15.1 14.8 14.7 14.2 13.0 11.7 10.7 

Camden ........................................ INC 13.7 13.8 13.3 13.5 12.7 11.7 10.3 9.7 

Gloucester .................................... 13.5 12.8 13.5 INC INC INC 11.4 10.0 INC 

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

Bucks ........................................... 14.3 13.9 13.9 13.2 13.2 12.6 12.2 11.3 10.9 

Chester ......................................... INC INC 15.2 INC INC INC 13.9 13.8 INC 

Delaware ...................................... 15.4 15.1 15.7 15.0 15.0 14.1 13.7 13.3 12.9 

Montgomery ................................. 14.1 INC INC INC INC 12.3 11.7 10.5 10.1 

Philadelphia .................................. 16.2 15.4 15.2 INC INC INC 13.0 12.0 11.4 

NM—No monitor located in county. 

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

monitor in Gloucester had incomplete data due to instrument malfunction, and/or insufficient sampling frequency in one quarter.

EPA proposes to find that the 

attainment demonstration modeling to 

be acceptable. New Jersey has followed 

EPA’s modeling guidance, and 

demonstrated through modeling and the 

weight-of-evidence process that the area 

would reach attainment by April 5, 

2010. 

B. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

requires a State to submit a separate RFP 

plan for any area for which the State 

justifies an extension of the attainment 

date beyond 2010. Areas that 

demonstrate attainment of the standard 

by 2010 are considered to have satisfied 

the requirement to show reasonable 

further progress toward attainment and 

need not submit a separate RFP plan. 

There are separate RFP requirements for 

those nonattainment areas with 

attainment dates beyond 2010. 

Since New Jersey has submitted an 

attainment demonstration that shows 

attainment by the 2010 deadline, thus 

satisfying the RFP requirement, a 

separate RFP plan is not necessary. 

C. Reasonably Available Control 

Technology/Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACT and RACM) 

As described in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, EPA is requiring 

a combined approach to RACT and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74431 

RACM. Under this approach, RACT and 

RACM are those measures that a state 

finds are both reasonably available and 

contribute to attainment ‘‘as 

expeditiously as practicable’’ in a 

specific nonattainment area. By 

definition, measures that do not help an 

area attain the NAAQS ‘‘as 

expeditiously as practicable’’ are not 

required RACT/RACM. 

In the preamble to the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, EPA provided a 

recommended list of the types of source 

categories and types of control measures 

that may be appropriate for evaluation, 

based upon the local source mix and 

attainment needs of a specific area. In 

order to establish that the target 

attainment date is as expeditious as 

practicable, it is necessary to evaluate 

the combination of measures that could 

advance the attainment date. A state’s 

attainment plan must include a list of 

measures considered and information 

sufficient to show that a state met all 

requirements for determination of 

RACT/RACM. 

Determination of RACT/RACM is a 

three-step process: (1) Identifying 

technically and economically feasible 

measures and associated emissions 

reductions, (2) conducting air-quality 

modeling and related analyses, and (3) 

selecting RACT/RACM. Identification of 

potential measures must be based on an 

inventory of emissions of directly 

emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from 

the range of relevant sources and source 

categories. 

Technical feasibility refers to whether 

there are available measures capable of 

reducing emissions of PM2.5 or PM2.5

precursors or both. A number of factors 

are considered in this analysis, such as 

process and operating conditions, raw 

materials, physical plant layout, non-air 

quality and energy impacts, and the 

time needed to install and operate 

controls. 

Economic feasibility refers to whether 

the cost of a measure is reasonable for 

the regulated entity. A number of factors 

are considered in this analysis, such as 

cost per ton of pollution reduced, 

economic effects on a facility and on the 

local economy. The cost per ton for 

previous measures is an indicator of 

reasonableness; however, the ability of a 

facility to absorb costs may differ for 

different source categories. The guiding 

principle is that the selected RACT/ 

RACM does not exclude any group of 

reasonable controls that together could 

advance the attainment date by at least 

a year. 

New Jersey’s RACT/RACM analysis 

for potential control measures was 

divided into two parts: A PM2.5 RACT 

Assessment for existing major stationary 

point sources, and a RACM analysis for 

additional point, area, on-road mobile 

sources and off-road sources. 

1. PM2.5 RACT 

New Jersey used several venues in its 

effort to identify potential emission 

reductions. New Jersey held a public 

workshop entitled ‘‘Reducing Air 

Pollution Together’’ and established 

technical workgroups to obtain input on 

the stringency of existing requirements 

and evaluate potentially new RACT 

controls for significant emission 

reductions of NOX, VOC, SO2, and 

PM2.5. This was followed by state 

participation in regional control 

development efforts, and an internal 

NJDEP assessment of RACT controls. 

The recommendations from these efforts 

were further evaluated by NJDEP’s Air 

Quality Management team, and resulted 

in a list of approximately 60 potential 

control measures. 

Each control measure was 

subsequently evaluated based on 

information collected regarding 

emission benefits, implementation 

issues, cost-effectiveness, and existing 

controls. White papers were developed 

and utilized to further inform the 

decision for determining RACT control 

measures. 

NJDEP conducted a review of current 

state and federal requirements such as 

New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) 

7:27–4, NJAC 7:27–6, and 7:27–9, New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 

Maximum Available Control 

Technology (MACT), and an evaluation 

of whether existing controls at the time 

of installation were previously 

considered Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT), Lowest Available 

Emission Rate (LAER) or State of the Art 

(SOTA). In addition NJDEP evaluated 

other states’ regulations, such as those 

in effect in California, and information 

listed in the USEPA’s RACT/BACT/ 

LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC). 

Table 7 lists the RACT source 

categories for which the State adopted 

as new or revised measures along with 

the targeted pollutants and affected 

rules and categories. They were also 

included in New Jersey’s ozone SIP 

since they also targeted precursors for 

ozone. The ozone SIP revision was 

approved by EPA on May 15, 2009 (74 

FR 22837). New Jersey adopted all of the 

rules listed in Table 7 on or before 

March 20, 2009. 

The Industrial, Commercial & 

Institutional Boilers measure identified 

as a RACT measure by New Jersey was 

also included in the regional 

photochemical grid modeling to 

demonstrate attainment. Although not 

included in the regional modeling 

(except partially through EGU consent 

decrees), the other measures listed in 

Table 7 provide additional emission 

reduction benefits and are included as 

WOE measures to provide additional 

evidence that the New Jersey associated 

nonattainment areas would attain the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Section IV.A.3 and 

the TSD provide further discussion on 

the control measures used to 

demonstrate attainment by New Jersey. 

There were no additional PM-specific 

RACT measures available that would 

qualify as RACM since they could not 

be implemented early enough to 

advance the attainment date. 

TABLE 7—NEW JERSEY PM2.5 RACT 

Candidate source categories 

Targeted Pollutants 

Affected rules 

NOX VOC SO2 PM2.5

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

Glass Manufacturing Furnaces ....................................... X .................... X X NJAC 7:27–19.2, 19.10. 

Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Boilers ................. X .................... .................... .................... NJAC 7:27–19.7. 

Coal-Fired EGU Boilers .................................................. X .................... X X NJAC 7:27–4, 10 & 19.4. 

Oil and Gas-Fired EGUs ................................................. X .................... .................... .................... NJAC 7:27–19.4. 

High Electrical Demand Day EGUs ................................ X .................... .................... .................... NJAC 7:27–19.4, 19.5, & 

19.29. 

Case by Case, Facility-Specific Emission Limit & Alternative Emission Limit.X X .................... .................... NJAC 7:27–16.17 & 19.13. 

Municipal Waste Combustors (incinerators) NOX rule ... X .................... .................... .................... NJAC 7:27–19.12. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74432 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5Federal Register notice: 77 FR 19 (January 3, 

2012). 

6New Jersey Register notice: 41 N.J.R. 4156 

(November 16, 2009). 

2. PM2.5 RACM 

The New Jersey Department of 

Transportation (NJDOT), in consultation 

with the NJDEP, identified 26 measures 

to be evaluated as prospective mobile 

source measures that could be 

considered reasonably available control 

measures. After identifying these 

measures, NJDOT analyzed each 

measure for its potential emissions 

reduction benefit, economic feasibility, 

technological feasibility, practicability 

and potential adverse impact. NJDOT 

analyzed each prospective emission 

control measure for each nonattainment 

area. One measure, School Bus 

Replacement of model years 2002 and 

older to be replaced with model year 

2007 buses, passed on all RACM 

criteria, but could not be implemented 

early enough to advance the attainment 

date from 2010 to 2009. The measure 

would have needed to be in place by 

2008 to achieve reductions in 2009. 

NJDEP reviewed a variety of sources 

of information, such as, those from 

regional planning organizations, other 

state organizations, existing NJDEP 

documents, EPA regional efforts, and 

New Jersey State organizations to 

develop a list of 628 potential nontransportation control measures (nonTCMs). Over 250 potential control 

measures were developed from New 

Jersey’s ‘‘Reducing Air Pollution 

Together.’’ White papers were 

developed and utilized to further inform 

the decision for determining RACM 

control measures. Fifteen non-TCMs 

passed all RACM criteria but could not 

be implemented by 2008. 

New Jersey noted in its SIP revision 

that they intended to pursue other 

measures which will help the state 

attain the new 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

These measures include lowering the 

sulfur content of fuel oil, which has 

since been adopted by the state. EPA 

approved revisions to New Jersey’s 

Subchapter 9, Sulfur in Fuels rule, on 

January 3, 2012 as part of EPA’s 

approval of the New Jersey Regional 

Haze SIP.5 This rule will reduce the 

sulfur content in all distillate heating oil 

(No.2 and lighter distillate fuel) to 500 

parts per million (ppm) by July 1, 2014 

and to 15 ppm by July 1, 2016. The 

adopted rule will also reduce the sulfur 

content in No.4 fuel oil to a consistent 

2,500 ppm throughout the State and 

reduce the sulfur content in No.5, No.6, 

and heavier fuel oil to 5,000 ppm or less 

on July 1, 2014. New Jersey estimated 6

a total SO2 emission reduction in 2014 

and 2016 from the new sulfur in fuel 

standards of 1,544 tons per year. 

3. RACT/RACM Conclusion 

EPA is proposing to approve New 

Jersey’s evaluation of the RACT/RACM 

control measures for the Northern and 

Southern New Jersey PM2.5

nonattainment areas. 

EPA has reviewed the RACT/RACM 

analysis submitted by New Jersey and 

finds that there were no additional 

measures that would have advanced the 

area attainment date of April 5, 2010. 

As noted previously, the most current 

monitoring data for the Northern and 

Southern New Jersey PM2.5

nonattainment areas indicates that the 

areas are attaining the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA’s guidance for the PM2.5

Implementation Rule recommended that 

if an area was predicted through the 

attainment plan to attain the standards 

within five years after designation, then 

the State would not need to conduct and 

submit additional RACM/RACT 

analyses. In light of the fact that the 

Northern and Southern New Jersey 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas are now 

attaining the standards, EPA proposes to 

conclude that the attainment plan meets 

the RACT/RACM requirements of the 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule, and that the 

level of control in the State’s attainment 

plan constitutes RACM/RACT for 

purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Because the PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

defines RACT/RACM as that level of 

control that is necessary to bring the 

area into attainment, the current level of 

federally enforceable controls on 

sources located within the area is by 

definition RACT/RACM for these areas 

for this purpose. New Jersey’s 

demonstration for attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS is based on the federally 

enforceable control measures identified 

in New Jersey’s April 1, 2009 SIP 

submittal and listed in this rulemaking’s 

table 3 titled, ‘‘Modeled control 

measures included in the 2009 BOTW 

Model Run for New Jersey’’, table 4 

titled, ‘‘Control Measures Adopted by 

New Jersey Not Captured in the 2009 

BOTW Model Run’’, and table 7 titled, 

‘‘New Jersey PM2.5 RACT. 

D. Contingency Measures 

In accordance with section 172(c)(9) 

of the CAA, the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule requires that PM2.5 attainment 

plans include contingency measures. 

Contingency measures are additional 

measures to be implemented in the 

event that an area fails to meet RFP or 

fails to attain a standard by its 

attainment date. These measures must 

be fully adopted rules or control 

measures that can be implemented 

quickly if the area fails to meet RFP or 

fails to attain by its attainment date, and 

should contain trigger mechanisms and 

an implementation schedule. In 

addition, they should be measures not 

already included in the SIP control 

strategy and should provide for 

emission reductions equivalent to one 

year of RFP. 

The attainment plan for the Northern 

and Southern New Jersey PM2.5

nonattainment areas included 

contingency measures, shown in Table 

8 below, to be implemented if the areas 

failed to attain by the required 

attainment date. 

TABLE 8—NEW JERSEY PM2.5 ATTAINMENT CONTINGENCY MEASURES

New Jersey contingency measures 

Targeted pollutants 

Affected rules 

NOX VOC SO2 PM2.5

Diesel Idling .................................................................... X .................... .................... X NJAC 7:27–14.1, 14.3. 

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

Onroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Fleet Turnover 2010).X .................... .................... X Federal Tier 2 and 2007 

Heavy Duty Diesel 

Standards, NJAC 7:27– 

29. 

Nonroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Fleet Turnover 2010).X .................... X X Federal 2004 Nonroad Diesel Rule. 

Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) NOX Rule X .................... .................... .................... NJAC 7:27–19.12, 19.13. 

NOX RACT Rule 2006 (Portion Not Modeled) ............... X .................... .................... .................... NJAC 7:27–19. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74433 

7Federal Register notices: 72 FR 41626 (July 31, 

2007), 73 FR 8200 (February 13, 2008), 74 FR 17781 

(April 17, 2009), 75 FR 45483 (August 3, 2010). 

TABLE 8—NEW JERSEY PM2.5 ATTAINMENT CONTINGENCY MEASURES—Continued 

New Jersey contingency measures 

Targeted pollutants 

Affected rules 

NOX VOC SO2 PM2.5

Controls from EGU and Refinery Consent Decrees (Additional Emissions Reductions)..................... .................... X .................... Not applicable (i.e., Consent Decree). 

All Federal and State contingency 

measures identified in the attainment 

plan have been adopted and 

implemented. EPA has previously 

approved the State rules listed in Table 

8 into the SIP during previous agency 

actions.7

As noted in section II.C of this 

proposed rulemaking, EPA has finalized 

the determination that the NY–NJ–CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based on 

complete, quality-assured, quality 

controlled, certified ambient air 

monitoring data for the 2007–2009 

monitoring period. EPA has also 

finalized the determination that the PA– 

NJ–DE PM2.5 nonattainment area had 

attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based 

on complete, quality-assured, quality 

controlled, certified ambient air 

monitoring data for the 2007–2009, and 

2008–2010 monitoring periods. Because 

EPA is determining that the areas are 

attaining by its applicable attainment 

date, in accordance with CAA 179(c)(1), 

no contingency measures for failure to 

attain by this date need to be 

implemented, and further EPA action is 

unnecessary. Furthermore, as set forth 

in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, areas 

that attained the NAAQS by the 

attainment date are considered to have 

satisfied the requirement to show RFP, 

and as such do not need to implement 

contingency measures to make further 

progress to attainment. Since the NY– 

NJ–CT PM2.5 nonattainment area and the 

PA–NJ–DE PM2.5 nonattainment area 

have attained by the required attainment 

date, contingency measures submitted 

by New Jersey are no longer necessary 

to meet RFP requirements or attain the 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment 

date, and further EPA action is 

unnecessary. Regardless of this 

determination, New Jersey has already 

adopted and implemented the control 

measures listed in Table 8. 

E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

The CAA requires Federal actions in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas to 

‘‘conform to’’ the goals of SIPs. This 

means that such actions will not: Cause 

or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, 

worsen the severity of an existing 

violation, or delay timely attainment of 

any NAAQS or any interim milestone. 

Actions involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with state 

air quality and transportation agencies, 

EPA, and FHWA and FTA to 

demonstrate that their long-range 

transportation plans (plans) and 

transportation improvement programs 

(TIP) conform to applicable SIPs. This is 

typically determined by showing that 

estimated emissions from existing and 

planned highway and transit systems 

are less than or equal to the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) 

contained in a SIP. 

In its submittal, New Jersey 

established three sets of budgets for the 

two MPOs within the two PM2.5

nonattainment areas in New Jersey. The 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning 

Commission (DVRPC) is a bi-state MPO 

that covers four counties in New Jersey 

and five in Pennsylvania. Of its four 

New Jersey counties, three counties 

(Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester) 

are part of the Southern New Jersey 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Because conformity is determined on 

a nonattainment area basis within a 

state, New Jersey established budgets for 

direct PM2.5 and NOX (a PM2.5

precursor) for these three combined 

counties. DVRPC would use these 

budgets to satisfy conformity 

requirements within the Southern New 

Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

New Jersey has also established 

separate ‘‘sub-area budgets’’ for the 

remaining DVRPC county (Mercer) and 

the nine counties covered by the North 

Jersey Transportation Planning 

Authority (NJTPA) that lie within the 

Northern New Jersey PM2.5

nonattainment area. Though the MPOs 

belong to the same nonattainment area 

within the state, these sub-area budgets 

allow each MPO to work independently 

to demonstrate conformity by meeting 

its own PM2.5 and NOX budgets. Each 

MPO must still verify, however, that the 

other MPO currently has a conforming 

plan and TIP prior to making a new 

plan/TIP conformity determination. 

New Jersey has determined that other 

potential PM2.5 precursors (VOC, SO2, 

and NH3) are not significant and has not 

set budgets for them. In addition, New 

Jersey analyzed monitoring data and 

determined that re-entrained road dust 

and construction dust do not 

significantly contribute to PM2.5

concentrations, and therefore has not set 

budgets for either road or construction 

dust. Table 9 lists New Jersey’s 

submitted budgets. 

TABLE 9—2009 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS SUBMITTED BY NEW JERSEY

[Tons per year] 

Nonattainment area MPO PM2.5 NOX

Northern New Jersey .................. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority .................................................... 842 44,321 

Northern New Jersey .................. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (Mercer County only) ............... 105 5,323 

Southern New Jersey ................. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (Burlington, Camden, and 

Gloucester Counties).

341 17,319 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74434 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

For motor vehicle emissions budgets 

to be approvable, they must meet, at a 

minimum, EPA’s adequacy criteria (40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4)). EPA made an 

adequacy determination on New Jersey’s 

2009 budgets on June 14, 2010 (75 FR 

33614). In our Notice of Adequacy we 

found that the budgets complied with 

the adequacy criteria listed at 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4). When EPA determines that 

budgets are adequate for transportation 

conformity, we note that an adequacy 

finding does not imply that budgets will 

ultimately be approved. Consistent with 

our adequacy review of New Jersey’s 

submittal and our subsequent thorough 

review of the entire SIP submission, 

EPA is proposing to approve New 

Jersey’s 2009 budgets. 

The budgets that New Jersey 

submitted were calculated using the 

MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emissions 

model. EPA is proposing to approve the 

inventory and the conformity budgets 

calculated using this model because this 

model was the most current model 

available at the time New Jersey was 

performing its analysis. Separate from 

today’s proposal, EPA has issued an 

updated motor vehicle emissions model 

known as the Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator or MOVES. In its 

announcement of this model, EPA 

established a grace period for continued 

use of MOBILE6.2 in transportation 

conformity determinations for 

transportation plans and TIPs, after 

which states and metropolitan planning 

organizations (other than California) 

must use MOVES for transportation 

plan and TIP conformity 

determinations. (See 75 FR 9411 (March 

2, 2010); 77 FR 11394 (Feb. 27, 2012)). 

Additional information on the use of 

MOVES in SIPs and conformity 

determinations can be found in the 

December 2009 Policy Guidance on the 

Use of MOVES2010 for State 

Implementation Plan Development, 

Transportation Conformity, and Other 

Purposes. This guidance document is 

available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

models/moves/420b09046.pdf. During 

the conformity grace period, the State 

and MPO(s) should use the interagency 

consultation process to examine how 

MOVES2010a will impact their future 

transportation plan and TIP conformity 

determinations, including regional 

emissions analyses. For example, an 

increase in emission estimates due to 

the use of MOVES2010a may affect an 

area’s ability to demonstrate conformity 

for its transportation plan and/or TIP. 

Therefore, state and local planners 

should carefully consider whether the 

SIP and motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s) should be revised with 

MOVES2010a or if transportation plans 

and TIPs should be revised before the 

end of the conformity grace period, 

since doing so may be necessary to 

ensure conformity determinations in the 

future. 

We would expect that states and 

metropolitan planning organizations 

would work closely with EPA and the 

local Federal Highway Administration 

and Federal Transit Administration 

offices to determine an appropriate 

course of action to address this type of 

situation if it is expected to occur. If 

New Jersey chooses to revise its PM2.5

attainment plan, it should consult 

Question 7 of the December 2009 Policy 

Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for 

State Implementation Plan 

Development, Transportation 

Conformity, and Other Purposes for 

information on requirements related to 

such revisions. 

V. What is EPA’s proposed action? 

EPA is proposing to approve several 

elements of New Jersey’s attainment 

plan including New Jersey’s attainment 

demonstration and motor-vehicle 

emissions budgets used for 

transportation conformity purposes, as 

well as the RACT/RACM analysis, and 

base-year and projection-year modeling 

emission inventories. 

EPA has determined that the SIP 

meets the applicable requirements of the 

CAA, as described in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule. Specifically, EPA 

has determined that New Jersey’s SIP 

includes an attainment demonstration 

and adopted state regulations and 

programs needed to support a 

determination that the Northern New 

Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area and the 

Southern New Jersey PM2.5

nonattainment area have attained the 

NAAQS by the April 2010 deadline. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 6, 2012. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region II. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30223 Filed 12–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with