## UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION II AIR PROGRAMS BRANCH

Technical Support Document

for

EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for the

New Jersey State Implementation Plan Revision:

Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes and Approval of the Associated
Maintenance Plan for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

## ) Standards

June 2013

## 2 

# Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION

................................ ................ 3

II. BACKGROUND

................................ ................ 3 III. REQUIREMENTS FOR REDESIGNATION

............................ 5

IV. EPA’S REVIEW OF NEW JERSEY’S REDESIGNATI ON REQUEST

......... 6

A. Attainment

................................ ................... 6 B. The area has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the

CAA

................................ ........................ 11 C. Fully approved SIP under 110(k) of the CAA

.......................... 16 D. The air quality improvement must be permanent and enforceable

........... 17 E. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan under section 175A of the

CAA

................................ ........................ 24

V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

............................ 33 Appendix A, Projected Emissions and Control Measure Benefits Summary 2007

- 2025

.... 34 Appendix B

– New Jersey Control Measure Description

........................ 41

## 3 

# I. INTRODUCTION

This document provides technical review of the State of New Jersey’s December 26, 2012

request to redesignate the New Jersey portion of the New York

- N.New Jersey

- Long Island, NY

NJ

- CT nonattainment area ( “NY

- NJ

- CT nonattainment area”), and the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia

- Wilmington, PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment area (“PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment area”)

from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. The redesignation submittal includes New Jersey’s maintenance plan for the areas to ensure

continued attainment

.



# II. BACKGROUND

General On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the

1997 PM 2.5 

## National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( NAAQ S ) , including an annual standard of
15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 

## ) based on a 3

- year average of annual mean PM 2.5


## concentrations and a 24

- hour (or daily) standard of 65 μg/m 3 

## based on a 3

- year average of the 98th percentile of 24

- hour concentratio ns. On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, EPA retained the annual average standard at 15 μg/m 3 

## but revised the 24

- hour standard to 35 μg/m 3 

## , based again on the three

- year average of the 98 th 

## percentile of 24

- hour concentrations.

On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, and supplemented on April 14, 2005, at 70 FR 19844, EPA designated the NY

- N J

- CT and PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment areas as nonattainment for the 1997

PM 2.5 

## air quality standards. In that action, EPA defined the New Jersey portion of the NY

- NJ

- CT (or NNJ) nonattainment area to include Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth,

M orris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union Counties; and defined the New Jersey portion of the PA

NJ

- DE (or SNJ) nonattainment area to include Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties. On November 13, 2009, at 74 FR 58688, EPA promulgated designations for the 24

- hour standard set in 2006, designating the NY

- NJ

- CT nonattainment area and the PA

- NJ

- DE

nonattainment area as nonattainment for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. The nonattainment

area boundaries for the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas for the 2006 PM 2.5 

## NA AQS were

identical to the boundaries for the 1997 PM 2.5 

## NAAQS, containing the same counties as listed above. EPA did not promulgate designations for the annual average NAAQS promulgated in 2006 since that NAAQS was essentially identical to the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS.

In the final rul emaking action dated November 1 5 , 2010 (75 FR 69589), EPA determined, pursuant to CAA section 179(c), that the entire NY

- NJ

- CT nonattainment area had attained the

1997 annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS, based upon quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data for the period of 2007

- 2009. On May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28782), EPA

determined that the entire PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment area was attaining the 1997 annual PM 2.5

## 4 NAAQS, based upon quality assured, quality con trolled, and certified ambient air monitoring

data for the 2007

- 2009 and 2008

- 2010 monitoring periods.

EPA finalized, on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76867), the determination that the entire NY

- NJ

CT nonattainment area had attained the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## N AAQS, based upon quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data that showed that the area

had monitored attainment of the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS for the 2007

- 2009 and 2008

- 2010 monitoring periods. On January 7, 2013 (78 F R 882), EPA finalized the determination that the

PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment area had attained the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS, based upon quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data that showed that the areas

had monitored attai nment of the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS for the 2008

- 2010 and 2009

- 2011 monitoring periods.

The 3

- year ambient air quality data for the last three year monitoring periods for the 2007

- 2009,

2008

- 2010, and 2009

- 2011 indicated no violations for the 1997 annu al PM 2.5 

## and 2006 PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. Preliminary design values for 2010

- 2012 also indicate no violations for the 1997

annual PM 2.5 

## and 2006 PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. As a result of the monitoring data continuing to show attainment, on December 26, 2012 New Jersey requested r edesignation of the NNJ and the SNJ

PM 2.5 

## nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## and 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient, complete, quality

- assured data is availa ble for the Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements under
107(d)(3)(E).

The technical support documents for the determinations of attainment for the NY

- NJ

- CT and

PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## and 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS are contained in the docket of this rulemaking.

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR or the Transport Rule) On May 12, 2005, EPA published CAIR, which requires significant reductions in emissions of

SO 2 

## and NO

x 

## from electric generating units (EGUs) to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and PM 2.5 

## they form in the atmosphere. See 70 FR 25162. The D.C.

Circuit ini tially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In resp onse to the D.C. Circuit’s decision, EPA issued the Transport Rule, also known as CSAPR, to address interstate transport of NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8,
2011).

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decisio n to vacate CSAPR. In that decision, it also ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR “pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.” EME Homer City , 696 F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for

## 5 rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and ot her parties have filed petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, but those petitions have not been acted on to date. Nonetheless, EPA

intends to continue to act in accordance with the EME Homer City opinion.

As explained in the notice of propo sed rulemaking, EPA has proposed that New Jersey has

demonstrated that the attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS will be maintained with or without the implementation of CAIR or CSAPR. New Jersey’s maintenance plan does not include the emission reductions from either program in the permanent and

enforceable Federal and State control measures needed for attainment and continued maintenance. Air quality modeling analysis conducted during the CSAPR rulemaking process

also demonstrated that the counties in the NY

- NJ

- CT and PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment areas will

have PM 2.5 

## levels below the 1997 annual and 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS in both 2012 and 2014 without taking into account emissions reductions from CAIR or CSAPR. See “Air Quality Modeling F inal Rule Technical Support Document”, App. B, B

- 18, B

- 19. This modeling is available in the docket of this rulemaking.



# III. REQUIREMENTS FOR REDESIGNATION

Under the CAA, designations can be revised if sufficient data is available to warrant such

revisio ns. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA identifies five specific requirements that an area must meet in order to be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment.

• The area must have attained the applicable NAAQS.

• The area must meet all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

• The area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110 (k) of the CAA.

• The air quality improvement must be permanent and enforceable.

• The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA.

EPA has provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (April 16,1992, 57 FR 13498, and supplemented on April 28, 1992, 57 FR 18070) and has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:

1. ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter

referred to as the ‘‘Calcagni Memorandum’’);

2. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
October 28, 1992;

## 6 3.‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, October 14, 1994; and

4. “Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS,’’ Mem orandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, March 2, 2012. Withdrawn by EPA on June 6, 2013



# IV. EPA’S REVIEW OF NEW JERSEY’S REDESIGNATION REQUEST

New Jersey’s redesignation request was evaluated in accordance wi th the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. EPA’s analysis of the effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding PM 2.5 

## Implementation under Subpart 4 is discussed fully in the proposed rulemaking.

A. Attainment

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). In this action for this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to determine that the NY

- NJ

- CT and the PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment areas are continuing to attain the 1997 annual and the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS.

1997 annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS An area may be considered to be attaining the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS if it meets the
NAAQS as determined i n accordance with 40 CFR 50.7 and Appendix N of part 50, based on three complete, co nsecutive calendar years of quality

- assured air quality monitoring data. To
attain this standard, the three

- year average of annual means must be less than or equal to 15 μg/m 3 

## at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area. The relevant data must be collected and quality

- assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors meet data completeness requirements when “at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarter have valid data.” T he use of less than complete data is subject to the approval of EPA, which may consider factors such as monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence, and nearby concentrations in determining whether to use

such data.

As previously indicated, EPA has finalized determinations that the NY

- NJ

- CT and PA

- NJ

- DE

nonattainment areas had attained the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. EPA has also reviewed more recent quality

- assured data for both NY

- NJ

- CT and the PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment areas. The

ambient air monitor ing data submitted by New Jersey shows PM 2.5 

## concentrations attaining the

annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS for the 2009

- 2011 time period for both nonattainment areas.

## 7 Table 1, below, shows the design value by county (i.e. 3

- year average) of annual mean PM 2.5



## concentra tions) for the 2009

- 2011 time period for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS for the NY

NJ

- CT PM 2.5 

## nonattainment area monitors. Table 2, below, shows the design value for the 2009

- 2011 time period for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS for the PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment are a monitors. Preliminary design values for the 2010

- 2012 time period is also shown.

TABLE 1

— DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE NY

- NJ

- CT 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3) [The standard is 15.0 μg/m3]

Nonattainment
Area Counties Annual mean concentrations Preliminary
annual mean
concentration 2011

3

- year annual design value Prelim inary

2012

3

- year annual design value

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009

- 2011 2010

- 2012
NEW JERSEY

Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Somerset
Union

NEW YORK

Bronx Kings
Nassau
New York Orange Queens
Richmond
Rockland
Suffolk
We stchester

CONNECTICUT

Fairfield
New Haven 9.1
INC

10.8
9.3
8.1
NM

8.1
9.0
NM

11.3

12.7
10.7
9.0
11.6
7.9
9.5
9.8
NM

8.1
9.1

9.4
9.9 8.8
9.2
10.6
9.5

7.4
NM

8.5
8.9
NM

10.6

11.4
9.9
8.7
11.5
8.1
9.4
9.7
NM

8.4
8.8

8.8
9.0 9.8
10.5

1 1.8
10.3
8.3
NM

8.7
10.1
NM

12.2

11.6
10.3
8.9

12.2
8.6
9.3
10.1
NM

8.8
9.3

10.0
10.0 8.9
9.0
10.9
8.8
8.3*
NM

7.9
9.1
NM

10.7

9.5
9.7

*

11.7
7.8*

8.5
9.4
NM

7.9

*

9.3
9.2 9.2
INC

11.1
9.7
7.9
NM

8.5
9.3

11.4

11.9
10.3
8.9

11.7
8.2
9.4
9.8
NM

8.4
9.1

9.4
9.6 9.2
9.5

11.1
9.5
8.0*
NM

8.4
9.3*

11.2

9.8
9.9

*

11.8
8.2*
9.1*
9.6*
NM

8.4

*

9.4
9.4



### INC

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

NM

- No monitor l ocated in county

*

- Missing 1 or more quarter

## 8 TABLE 2

— DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PA

- NJ

- DE 1997 ANNUALPM2.5 AREA (μg/m3) [The standard is 15.0 μg/m3]

Nonattainment
Area Counties Annual mean concentrations Preliminary
annual mean

concentrat ion 2011

3

- year annual design value Preliminary

2012

3

- year annual design
value

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009

- 2011 2010

- 2012
NEW JERSEY

Camden
Gloucester Burlington

DELAWARE

New Castle

PENNSYLVANIA

Bucks
Chester
Delaware Montgomery Philadelph ia 9.5
9.3
NM

11.2

10.8

14.1

12.4
10.4

11.1 10.3
10.0
NM

11.7

10.5
13.8
13.5
9.5
11.0 10.1
9.4
NM

10.3

11.5
13.3
12.9
10.3

11.4 9.0
9.4
NM

10.3

10.7
9.8
12.8*

9.7
16.4 9.7
9.3
NM

10.7

10.9
13.7
12.9
10.1

11.2 9.5
9.3*
NM

10.4

10.9
12.3*
13.1*

9.8
13.4



### NM

- No monitor located in county

*

- Missing 1 or more quarters



## Air monitoring data indicates that the NY

- NJ

- CT and the PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment areas

continue to meet the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. EPA has con cluded that NY

- NJ

- CT and the

PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment areas are continuing to attain the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. Therefore, the statutory criterion for attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS (40 CFR 50.7 and Appendix N of part 50) has been met.

2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS An area may be considered to be attaining the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS if it meets the NAAQS as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.13 and Appendix N of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality

- assured a ir quality monitoring data. To
attain this standard, the 98 th 

## percentile 24

- hour concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appe ndix N, is less than or equal to 35 μg/m 3 

## at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area over a 3

- year period. The relevant data must be collected and quality

- assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA’s AQS. The monitors meet data completeness requirements when “at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each

## 9 quarter have valid data.” The use of less than complete data is subject to the approval of EPA, which may consider factors such as monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence, and nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such data.

EPA previously finalized determinations that the NY

- NJ

- CT and PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment areas

had attained the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS, as noted in section IIA. EPA ha s also reviewed more recent quality

- assured data for both NY

- NJ

- CT and the PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment areas. The ambient air monitoring data submitted by New Jersey shows PM 2.5 

## concentrations attaining

the 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS for the 2009

- 2011 time period for both nonattainment areas.

Table 3, below, shows the design value by county for the 98 th 

## percentile 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## concentrations for the 2009

- 2011 time period for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS for the NY

NJ

- CT PM 2.5 

## nonattainment area monitors. Table 4 sho ws the design value by county for the

2009

- 2011 time period for the PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment area monitors. Preliminary design

values for the 2010

- 2012 time period is also shown.

## 10 TABLE 3

— DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE NY

- NJ

- CT 2006 24

- HOUR PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3) [The standard is 35 μg/m3]

Nonattainment
Area Counties 98 th Percentile 24

- Hour concentrations Preliminary

98 th percentile

24

- hour
concentration 2011

3

- year 24

- hour design value Preliminary

2012

3

- year 24

- hour design
value

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009

- 2011 2010

- 2012
NEW JERSEY

Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Somerset
Union

NEW YORK

Bronx Kings
Nassau
New York Orange Queens
Richmond
Rockland
Suffolk
Westchester

CONNECTICUT

Fairfield
New Haven 27.1
INC

29.2
23.0
21.0
NM

20.9
26.1
NM

27.7

30.0
26.9
25.8
29.0
20.6
26.7
24.6
NM

21.6
27.0

26.4
30.2 25.1
INC

25.9
26.9
19.1
NM

22.7

24.4
NM

28.1

27.0
24.8
20.2
27.0
26.5
25.5
25.5
NM

26.1
26.7

24.2
25.5 23.5
23.9
28.2

27.7
20.5
NM

2 4.4
25.4
NM

32.9

27.0
24.3
23.1
26.8
20.8

24.7
23.2
NM

21.7

22.7

25.2
27.5 19.2
21.5
24.6
20.5
17.5*
NM

18.2

21.4
NM

25.8

25.1

22.1

*

24.9
20.2*

20.5

22.1
NM

18.7

*

22.5
22.0 25
INC

28
26
20
NM

23
25
NM

30

28
25
23
28
23
26

24
NM

23
25

26
28 23
23
26
25
19*
NM

21
24*
NM

29

24

24

*

26
23*
24*
24*
NM

22

*

24
25



### NM

- No monitor located in county

INC

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

*

- Missing 1 or more quarters

## 11 TABLE 4

— DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PA

- NJ

- DE 2006 24

- HOUR PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3) [The standard is 35 μg/m3]

Nonattainment
Area Counties 98 th Percentile 24

- Hour
concentrations Preliminary

98 th percentile

24

- hour

concentra tion 2011

3

- Year 24

- hour

design value Preliminary

2012

3

- Year 24

- hour design
value

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009

- 2011 2010

- 2012
NEW JERSEY

Camden
Gloucester Burlington

DELAWARE

New Castle

PENNSYLVANIA

Bucks
Chester
Delaware Montgomery
Philade lphia 25.0
21.9
NM

28.4

25.8
31.1
27.9

27.2
28.6 23.4
21.6
NM

27.9

28.3
35.1
32.8
25.9
28.9 24.3

22.2
NM

24.7

29.7
33.8
28.6
27.6
30.6 19.8
21.8
NM

24.2

28.2

24.1
31.1*

21.8
31.4 24

22
NM

27

28
33
30

27
29 23
22*
NM

26

29
31
31*

25
30



### NM

- No monitor located in county.

*

- Missing 1 or more quarters



## Air monitoring data indicates that the NY

- NJ

- CT and the PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment areas

continue to meet the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. EPA has concluded that the NY

- NJ

- CT and

the PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment areas continue to attain the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. Therefore, the statutory criterion for attainment of the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS (40 CFR 50.13 and Appendix N of part 50) has been met.

B. The area has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA

EPA has determined that the NNJ and the SNJ PM 2.5 

## nonattainment areas have met all SIP requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Req uirements) and that, upon final approval of the 2007 attainment year emissions inventory, as discussed below in this proposed rulemaking, it will have met all applicable SIP requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with CAA section

10 7(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has proposed to find that all applicable requirements of the New Jersey SIP for purposes of redesignation have been approved in accordance with CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).

1. Section 110 SIP requirements

## 12 Section 110(a)(2 ) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to coll ect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in CAA section 110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to the following:

- Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state a fter reasonable public notice and hearing;

- Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;

- Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C requirements ( Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD));

- Provisions for the implementation of part D requirements for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;

- Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

- Provisions for public and local agency participation in p lanning and emission control rule development.

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate transport of air pollutants in accordance with the NO

x 

## SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356),

amendments to the NO

x 

## SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (6 5 FR 11222), and CAIR, May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area’s designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area’s designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the de signation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that these requirements are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

In addition, EPA believes that the other CAA section 110(a)(2) elements not connected with

n onattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area’s attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after it is redesignated. EPA concludes that the CAA section 1 10(a)(2) and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area’s designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request, and that CAA section
110(a)(2) elements not linked in the area’s nonattain ment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. This approach is consistent with EPA’s existing policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading,

## 13 Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland

- Akron

- Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on

this issue i n the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000) and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001).

On April 10, 2013 (78 FR at 21296) EPA proposed action on New Jersey’s section 110

‘‘infrastructure SIPs’’ required under CAA section 110(a)(2) that were submitted by the state. New Jersey submitted an infrastructure SIP on February 25, 2008 that addressed the 1997 annual

PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. On January 20, 2010 the state submitted an infrastructure SIP that ad dressed the

2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. EPA will be acting on those SIPs under separate actions.

EPA has reviewed the New Jersey SIP and has concluded that it meets the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to the extent they are applic able for purposes for redesignating the NNJ and SNJ PM 2.5 

## nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997 annual

PM 2.5 

## NAAQS, and the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA has not yet completed rulemaking on New Jersey’s submittals for the PM 2.5 

## infrastructure SIP elements of section 110(a)(2), these requirements are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked

to the PM 2.5 

## nonattainment status of the NNJ and SNJ PM 2.5 

## nonattainment areas. Therefore,

EPA believes that these SIP elements are not applicable requirements for purposes of review of New Jersey’s PM 2.5 

## redesignation request.

2. Title I, part D nonattainment requirements

Subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the CAA sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. All areas that were designated nonattainment for the 1997

and 2006 PM 2.5 

## NAAQS were designated under this subpart of the CAA, and the requirements applicable to them are contained in sections 172 and 176.

Section 172 Requirem ents

Under CAA section172, states with nonattainment areas must submit plans providing for timely attainment and meet a variety of other requirements. As mentioned, EPA has finalized

determinations that the NY

- NJ

- CT and PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment areas had att ained the 1997

annual and the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS.

Notwithstanding that New Jersey’s obligation to submit an attainment demonstration, RACT/RACM, RFP, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to the attainment of

the PM 2.5 

## NAAQS has been suspended due to EPA’s determination that the nonattainment areas attained the NAAQS, New Jersey had previously submitted a SIP revision (PM 2.5 

## attainment plan) for attaining the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. The SIP was submitted to EPA on April 1, 2009. EPA p roposed to approve the PM 2.5 

## attainment plan on December 14, 2012 (77 FR 74421). As a result of the determination of attainment, the only remaining requirement to be considered is the emission inventory required under CAA section 172(c)(3).

## 14 The General Pre amble for Implementation of Title I also discusses the evaluation of these requirements in the context of EPA’s consideration of a redesignation request. The General Preamble sets forth EPA’s view of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating

redes ignation requests when an area is attaining the standard. See General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).

A component of the attainment plan specified under section 172(c)(1) is the requirement to provide for the “impleme ntation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable “(RACM). Since RACM is an element of the attainment demonstration, see General Preamble (57 FR 13560), for the same reason the attainment demonstration no longer applies b y its own terms, RACM also no longer applies to areas that EPA has determined h ave clean air.
Furthermore, EP A has consistently interpreted this provision to require only implementation of such potential RACM measures that could advance attainment 1



## . Thus where an area is already attaining the standard, no additional RACM measures are required. EPA’s interpretation that the statute requires only implementation of the RACM measures that would advance attainment was upheld by the United States Court of Appeal s for the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F. 3d
735, 743

- 745, 5 th 

## Cir, 2002) and by the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F. 3d 155, 162

- 163, D.C. Cir.2002).

Because attainment has been reached for the NY

- N J

- CT and PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment areas, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment. CAA section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment demonstration and RACT/RACM are no longer considered to be applicable requirements for as long as the a rea continues to attain the standard until redesignation. See 40
CFR 51.1004(c).

The RFP requirement under CAA section 172(c)(2) is similarly not relevant for purposes of redesignation. CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that state implementation plan (SIP) p rovisions in nonattainment areas must require “reasonable further progress.” The term “reasonable further progress” is defined in section 171(1) as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.” Thus, by definition, the “reasonable further progress” provision under requires only such

reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain the NAAQS. If an area has attained the NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP requirement has been fulfilled, and since the area has already attained, showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment “[has] no meaning at that point. ” General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. As part of the maintenance plan submitted by New Jersey on
December 26, 2 012, and further supplemented on May 3, 2013, the State has submitted an

1 

### This interpretation was adopted in the General Preamble, see 57 FR 13498,
and has been uph eld as applied to the Clean Data Policy as well as to

nonattainment SIP submissions. See NRDC v. EPA , 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir.

2009); Sierra Club v. EPA , 294 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir 2002)

## 15 attainment year inventory that meets this requirement. For purposes of the PM 2.5 

## NAAQS, the emissions inventory should address not only direct emissions of PM 2.5 

## , but also emissions of all precursors with the potential to participate in PM 2.5 

## formation, i.e., SO 2 

## , NO X 

## , VOC and

ammonia (NH 3 

## ). The 2007 attainment year emissions inventory submitted by New Jersey in the
December 26, 2012 submission addressed PM 2.5 

## (including condensables) , SO 2 

## , and NO

x 

## emissions. The May 3, 2013 subm ission addressed VOC and NH 3



## .

The emissions cover the general source categories of point sources, area sources, onroad sources and nonroad sources. The proposed approval of the 2007 attainment year emissions inventory in this rulemaking action will, when finalized, meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3).

EPA’s detailed evaluation of the base year inventories for all pollutants are addressed in section VI.E.2.(a), Attainment Emissions Inventory, of the proposed rulemaking, and the additional Technical Support document entitled, SECTION 1 New Jersey 2007 Base Year Inventory SIP for the Northern and Southern New Jersey PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas, Technical Support

Documentation

Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an area, and CAA section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary

sourc es anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that, since the PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in the memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 19 94 entitled, “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.”

New Jersey has not relied on a part D NSR program to maintain air quality for the 1997 annual

PM 2.5 

## and 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. Moreover, because th e NNJ and SNJ PM 2.5 

## nonattainment areas are being redesignated to attainment by this action, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements will be applicable to new or modified sources of PM 2.5 

## in the

area.

New Jersey currently implements NSR in the thirteen nonattainment counties through the “transitional” NSR provisions contained in Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51 and the USEPA policy memorandum dated July 21, 2011, concerning interpollutant offsets. The Federal provisions and policy memorandu m will be superseded once New Jersey revises its Emission

Offset Rule N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 18.

New Jersey does not have its own promulgated regulations as part of the SIP for part C Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules. New Jersey is appropriately implementing the PSD program through the delegated federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. The program will become effective in the NNJ and SNJ areas upon redesignation to attainment.

## 16 Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures necessar y to provide for

attainment of the standard. Because attainment has been reached in the NY

- NJ

- CT and the PA

NJ

- DE nonattainment areas, no additional control measures are needed to provide for attainment.

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the app licable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes the New Jersey SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes of redesignation.

CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas “shall provide fo r the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingenc y measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or [EPA].” This contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements.

Because attainment has been r eached for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS, contingency measures are not applicable for redesignation.

Section 176 conformity requirements

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that

fede rally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine transportation conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects that are developed, funded or approved under T itle 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act. The requirement to determine general conformity applies to all other federally supported or funded projects. State transportation conformity SIP

revisions must be consistent with Feder al transportation conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority

under the CAA.

EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a

rede signation request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this interpre tation); see also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa, Florida).

C. Fully approved SIP under 110(k) of the CAA

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA requires that for an area to be redesignated the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section
110(k).

Upon final approval of New Jersey’s 2007 attainment year emissions inventory, EPA will have fully approved the SIPs for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual and

## 17 2 006 PM2.5 NAAQS under section 110(k) for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation.

EPA has proposed to approve the 2007 attainment year emissions inventory (submitted as part of its maintenance plan) for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainmen t areas as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, New Jersey will have satisfied all applicable requirements under part D of Title I of

the CAA.

D. The air quality improvement must be permanent and enforceable The improvement in air quality must be due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)).

EPA has proposed to determine that the air quality improvement in New Jersey in the NNJ and

SNJ PM 2.5 

## nonattainment areas is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other state adopted measures.

New Jersey’s redesignation submission cited a number of regulatory programs that provided for

emission reductions of PM 2.5 

## , and PM 2.5 

## precursors NO X 

## , and SO 2 

## . New Jersey also included

contro l measures for VOCs, which were not considered quantifiable precursors when the redesignation request was submitted, as they expected some PM 2.5 

## benefit from the implementation of VOC control measures.

The regulatory control measures for PM 2.5 

## , and PM 2.5 

## precursors VOCs, NO X 

## , and SO 2 

## , included in New Jersey’s redesignation submission have been adopted into the SIP, which provided for emission reductions from 2002 to 2009, the year modeled for the attainment demonstration for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. New Jer sey also included additional measures that were adopted by the state, but not yet implemented, that would provide benefit after 2009. From 2002 to 2009, statewide emissions decreased significantly: PM2.5 emissions decreased by 34 percent, NOx

emissions ha ve decreased by 39 percent, and SO2 emissions have decreased by 70 percent.

Tables 5A and 5B below, show the State and Federal control measures, which provide emission

reductions from 2002 to 2009. The tables also summarize the maintenance plan measures w ith

creditable emission reductions that New Jersey is relying on to demonstrate maintenance. Additional 2002 to 2009 control measures that support the SIP but were not quantified, or are VOC only measures, are also shown.

## 18 Table 5A

- New Jersey’s 2002

- 2009 Control Measures that Reduce Emissions of PM 2.5 

### and Its Precursors in New Jersey

Measure Targeted Pollutants Maintenance

Plan Measure Affected State

Rules NOx PM 2.5 

### SO 2 

### VOC
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (IM) Program X

........... .......... X X NJAC 7:27

- 15

NO

x 

### Budget Program (SIP Call) X

........... X

........... ........ NJAC 7:27

- 30

Electric Generating Unit (EGU)

- BL England

Administrative Consent Order (ACO) X X X

........ ........ NA

EGU

- PSEG

- Consent

Decree X X X

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

Refinery Consent Decree (Sunoco,Val ero, ConocoPhillips ) X X X X X NA

Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers (ICI) Boilers, Turbines and Engines 2005 X

........ ........ ........ X NJAC 7:27

- 27.19

Case by Case NOx and VOC (Facility Specific

Emission Limits or FSELs/

Administrative Emission Limits or AELs) X

........ ........ X NJAC 7:27

- 16, 19

Sewage and Sludge

Incinerators X

........ ......... ........ NJAC 7:27

- 19.28

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

- 29

Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) X

.......... .......... ......... NJAC 7:27

- 19. 13

Asphalt Production Plants X

......... ......... ........ X NJAC 7:27

- 19.9

ICI Boilers 2009 X

......... ........ ....... X NJAC 7:27

- 19.7

EGU

- High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) X

......... X

........ ......... NJAC 7:27

- 19.29

Additional New Jersey Measures that Support the SIP

Stage I and II (Gas oline Transfer Operations). ......... ......... ......... X

.......... NJAC 7:27

- 16

Architectural Coatings 2005

......... ......... ......... X

........... NJAC 7:27

- 23

## 19 Consumer Products 2005

......... ......... ......... X

........... NJAC 7:27

- 24

Mobile Equipment Refinishing (Auto body) ......... ........ ........ X

............ NJAC 7:27

- 16

Solvent Cleaning

......... ........ ........ X

.......... NJAC 7:27

- 16

Portable Fuel Containers

2005 ......... ........ ........ X

.......... NJAC 7:27

- 24

Mercury Rule X X X

........ .......... NJAC 7:27

- 27

Diesel Vehicle Retrofit Program ......... X

........ ......... .......... NJAC 7:27

- 32, 14

Consumer Products 2009

...... ... ........ ........ X

........... NJAC 7:27

- 24

Adhesives & Sealants

......... ........ ........ X

........... NJAC 7:27

- 26

Asphalt Paving (cutback and emulsified) ......... ........ ........ X

........... NJAC 7:27

- 16.19

Control Technology Guideline (CTG) Group 1: Printing ......... ........ ........ X

............ NJAC 7:27

- 16 .7

Portable Fuel Containers

2009 ......... ........ ........ X

.............. NJAC 7:27

- 24

Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) X X X X

............. NJAC 7:27

- 8

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) X X X X

............... NA

Energy Master Plan X X X X

............... NA

Table 5B

- Fede ral 2002

- 2009 Control Measures that Reduce Emissions of PM 2.5 

### and Its Precursors in New Jersey

Measure Targeted Pollutants Maintenance Plan Measure

NOx PM 2.5 

### SO 2 

### VOC

Residential Woodstove

NSPS X X

...... X X

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

Acid Rain Program X

....... X

.......

Nonroad Diesel Engine

Standards X X

....... X X

## 20 Phase 2 Standards for New Nonroad Spark

- Ignition Nonhandheld Engines at or below 19 kW (lawn and garden) X

........ ........ X X

Phase 2 Standards for Small Spark

- Igni tion Handheld Engines at or below 19 kW (lawn and garden) X

........ ........ X X

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Defeat Device

Settlement X

........... ........ ........

Gasoline Boats and Personal Watercraft, Outboard Engines X X

........ X X

National Low Emission

Vehicle Program (NLEV) X X

....... X X

Large Industrial Spark

Ignition Engines over 19 kW (>50 hp) Tier 1 and Tier

2 X

........... ........ ........ X

Heavy

- Duty Highway Rule

- Vehicle Standards and

Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control X X

........ X X

Diesel Marine Engines over

37 kW Cat egory 1 Tier 2, Category 2 Tier 2, Category

3 Tier 1 X

....... ......... X X

Recreational Vehicles (includes snowmobiles, off

highway motorcycles, and

all

- terrain vehicles) X

....... ......... X X

Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression

Ignition Engines Less Than

30 Lit ers per Cylinder Tier 2

and Tier 3 X X

........ X X

## 21 USEPA Maximum

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards including

Industrial Boiler/Process

Heater MACT ......... ....... ......... X X



## Tables 6A and 6B show additional post 2009 maintenance plan measures with cre ditable emission reductions, including measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented, that New Jersey is relying on to demonstrate maintenance. New Jersey’s submittal also included additional measures to provide additional assurance that the impr ovement in New Jersey’s air quality will continue to improve.

Table 6A

- New Jersey’s Post 2009 Control Measures that Reduce

Emissions of PM 2.5 

### and Its Precursors in New Jersey

Measure Targeted Pollutants Maintenance

Plan Measure Affected State

Rules NOx PM 2.5 

### SO 2 

### VOC

Vehicle IM Program

Revisions X

.......... .......... X X NJAC 7:27

- 15

Glass Manufacturing X

....... ........ .......... X NJAC 7:27

- 19.10

EGU

– Coal, Oil and Gas

Fired Boilers X X X

.......... X NJAC 7:27

- 4.2, 10.2, 19.4

Low Sulfur Distillate and

Residual Fuel S trategies X

....... X

.......... X NJAC 7:27

- 9,

7:27

- 27.9

Table 6B

- Federal Post 2009 Control Measures that Reduce Emissions of PM 2.5 

### and Its Precursors in New Jersey

Measure Targeted Pollutants Maintenance Plan Measure

NOx PM 2.5 

### SO 2 

### VOC

Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines MACT X X

...... .......... X

## 22 A complete list of the control measures that New Jersey is relying on to maintain the NAAQS beyond the attainment year, 2007 is included in Appendix A, Projected Emissions and Control

Measure Benefits Sum mary 2007

- 2025. A description of New Jersey’s control measures can be found in the New Jersey’s March 26, 2009 Attainment Plan SIP submittal, Section 4.0,which is included in Appendix B, and/or in the New Jersey rules referenced in the tables in Appendi x A.

Additional Supporting Data

New Jersey also presented data to demonstrate that the decline in PM 2.5 

## concentrations was due primarily to permanent and enforceable control measures rather than the country’s economic recession that began in 2007 and res ulting down turn in energy use.

Although electricity generation in New Jersey decreased by one percent from 2007 to 2009, electricity generation in New Jersey has experienced an overall increase of 5 percent from 2002 to 2011. In contrast, emission redu ctions have outpaced generation changes with decreases of 93, 84 and 72 percent for SO 2 

## , NO

x 

## and PM 2.5 

## , respectively, from 2000

- 2011, with significant emission reductions occurring prior to 2007. From 2007 to 2009, emission reductions for SO 2 

## , NO

x 

## and PM 2 .5 

## show decreases of 65, 51, and 46 percent, respectively. A graph summarizing New Jersey Electricity sales and consumption since 2000 compared to PM 2.5 

## , NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emissi ons from EGUs is shown below:

Figure 1

New Jersey also examined the onroad mobile sector to determine if statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data declined and whether it was significant enough to affect air quality

## 23 compared to emission reductions from “fleet turnover”. “Fleet turnover” refers to the replacement of older, more polluting vehicles with newer vehicles that emit pollutants at lower levels as a result of the Federal “Tier 2” new vehicle emission standards (began with the 2004 model year), a nd further augmented by the California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV)II new vehicle emission standards (began with the 2009 model year in New Jersey).
Based on yearly statewide data, VMT declined approximately 3.7 percent in 2008 and 0.5 percent in 2009 after steady annual VMT increases of about two percent between 1996 and 2006. Between 2007 and 2009, emissions of PM2.5 decreased by 23 percent, and NOx by 24 percent. An evaluation of onroad emissions data from 2002 to 2009 shows New Jersey emissions of

PM2.5 decreasing by approximately 39 percent and emissions of NOx decreasing by approximately 50 percent, even though VMT increased by 4.5 to 6 percent. This suggests that fleet turnover, rather than changes in VMT, had a much greater impact on onroad e missions.

A table summarizing New Jersey VMT trend data since 2000 is shown below:

Figure 2

## 24 New Jersey has demonstrated that actual enforceable emission reductions are responsible for the air quality improvement. EPA has proposed to find that the combination of existing EPA

approved SIP and Federal measures contribute to the permanence and enforceability of reduction

in ambient PM 2.5 

## levels that have allowed New Jersey to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 

## and 2006 PM 2.5 

## NAAQS.

E. The area must have a fully approved main tenance plan under section 175A of the CAA

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In co njunction with its request to redesignate the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24

- hour PM2.5 NAAQS, New Jersey submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance for at least 10 years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment. EPA believes this maintenance plan meets the requirements for approval under section 175A of the CAA.

1. What is required in a maintenance plan?

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a main tenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10

- year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS

violat ions, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future PM2.5 violations. The Calcagni Memorandum, dated September 4, 1992, provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan , explaining that a maintenance plan should address five requirements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for 10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network; (4) verification o f continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations. As is discussed more fully below, EPA proposes to find that the New Jersey maintenance plan includes all the necessary components and is thus proposing to approve i t as a revision to the New Jersey SIP.

2. Analysis of the maintenance plan The maintenance demonstration must demonstrate effective safeguards of the NAAQS for at least 10 years following the redesignation showing that future PM2.5 and precursor emission s will not exceed the level of the attainment year.

States are required to submit the following inventory elements to satisfy the redesignation/ maintenance plan inventory requirements:

## 25 Maintenance Plan Attainment Inventory. Maintenance plan provisions i nclude a comprehensive, accurate, and current emissions inventory from all point, area, nonroad and onroad mobile sources for the PM2.5 nonattainment area. States are required to develop an attainment inventory to identify the level of emissions in the are a that is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. This inventory should include the emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.

Maintenance Plan Interim Year Inventory. At a minimum, emissions should be projected to a midpoint year between the attainment year and the endpoint/10

- year inventory. This inventory provides a summary of controlled emissions for point, area, nonroad and onroad mobile sources

for the PM 2.5 

## nonattainment area for the interim year inventory.

Mai ntenance Plan Projected Final Year Inventory. Emissions should be projected from the attainment year to at least 10 years into the future. This inventory provides a summary of controlled emissions for point, area, nonroad and onroad mobile sources at the endpoint/10

- year period.

For the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 2007 emissions were projected to 2017 and 2025. New Jersey must demonstrate, with the control programs identified in this SIP, that total 2017 or 2025 projected emissions do not excee d the 2007 emission levels.

EPA’s detailed evaluation of the 2007 Attainment and 2017 and 2025 Projection Inventories

, including evaluating the effect of the D.C. Circuit’s remand of EPA’s implementation rule on the maintenance plan, are addressed in sec tion VI.E.2.(a)

- (c ) of the proposed rulemaking, and the

document

, Section 2, 2007 Attainment and 2017 and 2025 Projection Inventories for the Northern and Southern New Jersey

, PM 2.5 Redesignation Full Maintenance SIP, Technical Support Document, and the document Section 3, Emission Inventory Requirements for the Northern and Southern New Jersey

, PM 2.5 Redesignation/Maintenance Plan Demonstration

Checklist

Maintenance Demonstration Thru 2025

CAA section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to at tainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area “for at least 10 years after the redesignation.” EPA has interpreted this as a showing of maintenance “for a period of 10 years following redesignation.” See Calcag ni Memorandum. Where the emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year inventory. See Calcagni Memorandum.

As discussed in detail in the proposed rulemaking and in the documents referenced above (i.e.

Section 2 and Section 3) , the State’s maintenance plan submission expressly documents that the

NNJ and SNJ PM 2.5 

## nonattainment areas’ emissions inventories will remain below the attainm ent

## 26 year inventories through at least 2025.

As explained in the proposal, levels of SO 2 

## , NO

x 

## , and PM 2.5 

## are projected to decrease substantially between 2007 and 2025. EPA believes that it is highly improbable that sudden

increases would occur that could exceed the attainment year inventory levels in 2025.

Air quality concentrations for PM 2.5 

## are 1 to 2 μg/m3 or more under the NAAQS level, indicating a margin of safety in the event of any emissions increase. As shown in tables 1 and 2, for the 1997 annual NAAQS of 15 μg/m3, the design value for 2009

- 2011 for the NY

- NJ

- CT PM2.5

nonattainment are a value was 11.7 μg /m3; and the design value for 2009

- 2011 for the PA

- NJ

DE PM 2.5 

## nonattainment area was measured at 13.7 μg/m3. As shown in tables 3 and 4, for the

2006 PM 2.5 

## NAAQS of 35 μg /m3, the design value for 2009

- 2011 for the NY

- NJ

- CT PM2.5

nona ttainment area was 30 μg /m3; and the design value for 2009

- 2011 for the PA

- NJ

- DE PM2.5 nonattainment area was measured at 33 μg /m3.

Air quality concentrations showed a significant downward trend over time for both the NY

- NJ

CT and PA

- NJ

- DE PM2.5 nonatta inment areas for both the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. See figures below:

Figure 3

Annual PM 2.5 

## Monitoring Design Value Trends 1999

- 2011 Northern New Jersey

- New York

- Connecticut Nonattainment Area

## 27 Figure 4

Daily (24

- Ho ur) PM 2.5 

## Monitoring Design Value Trends 1999

- 2011 Northern New Jersey

- New York

- Connecticut Nonattainment Area

Figure 5

Annual PM 2.5 

## Monitoring Design Value Trends 1999

- 2011

Southern New Jersey

- Philadelphia Nonattainment A rea

## 28 Figure 6

Daily (24

- Hour) PM 2.5 

## Monitoring Design Value Trends 1999

- 2011 Southern New Jersey

- Philadelphia Nonattainment Area

Additional emissions reductions will occur now, and in the futur e, from EPA’s Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards (MATS) , New Jersey’s Diesel Retrofit Program, NJDEP’s amended Administrative Consent Order with B.L. England, and from New Jersey’s Clean Construction
Program.

Federal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

On D ec ember 16, 2011, the EPA promulgated the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) to reduce emissions of toxic pollutants from power plants. 2 

## MATs was updated on March 28,

2013 3



## . The rule includes emission limits for mercury, particulate matter, SO 2 

## , acid gases and

certain individual metals.

EPA estimates that there are approximately 1,400 units affected by this action, which includes approximately 1,100 existing coal

- fired units and 300 oil fired unit s at about 600 power plants.

There are 73 facilities in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York and Connecticut that could potentially be affected by the MATS.

2 77 Fed. Reg. 9304 (February 16, 2012)

3 

### 78 Fed

. Reg 24073 (April 24, 2013)

## 29 New Jersey expects that MATS will also result in the conversion of most New Jersey sources that burn No. 6 fuel oil to gas. The New Jersey c oal power plants either already comply with MATS (6 units) or will comply by the MATS compli ance deadline (2 units). New Jersey expects that MATS will result in significant emission reductions from upwind sources, resulting in further improvement to the a ir quality in New Jersey.

Diesel Retrofit Program (N.J.A.C 7:27

- 32)

The existing rule requires the installation of retrofit emission control technology on garbage trucks, commercial buses and publicly owned onroad vehicles and off

- road equipment. Due t o public health impacts, these vehicles were chosen because they operate in residential areas, some

of which are overburdened urban communities. The retrofits are scheduled to occur between

2008 and 2015. These rules will reduce the emissions of fine die sel particles. The program regulates publicly

- owned and certain privately

- owned fleets. In 2009, an estimated retrofit population of 24,000 onroad vehicles and off

- road equipment was expected to be affected by the mandatory retrofit program. As of 2012, 1 8,300 of these onroad vehicles and off

- road equipment have either been retrofitted or are projected to be retrofitted, since some of the vehicles were either retired as a compliance option or exempt from the rule.

New Jersey Clean Construction Program

NJ DEP established a voluntary program to reduce harmful diesel particulate emissions from nonroad construction equipment operating in New Jersey, with a particular focus on equipment used in urban areas. Through this program, retrofit devices are installed on construction equipment using funding provided by USEPA under the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act, and the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act.

The NJDEP and N.J. Department of Transportation (NJDOT) are implementing Governor

Christie’s 2011 Executi ve Order #60, which requires a three year pilot program to install pollution

- control devices on nonroad constructio n equipment used on selected NJDOT projects. The projects on which the pollution control devices will be installed are jointly chosen by the NJDEP and NJDOT, with preference given to selecting projects in urban areas where cumulative exposure to pollution creates a disproportionate impact on the people living in those communities. The goal is to install tailpipe particulate retrofits on 175 p ieces of nonroad construction equipment by Summer 2014. Further details can be found online at: http://www.stopthesoot.org/clean2.html

.

B.L. England Administrative Consent Order

On May 18, 2012, N JDEP amended its Administrative Consent Order with B.L. England in Cape May County. Under the amended agreement, B.L. England will further reduce all air pollutants

## 30 by shutting down one of its coal

- fired units (Unit 1) and converting two others to natural gas (Unit 2 is currently burns coal and Unit 3 currently burns fuel oil). The agreement commits to

the cessation of coal

- fired Unit 1 by fall 2013 and for the conversion of Units 2 and 3 to natural gas by May 2016. Unit 2, which currently only operates during peak demand periods, will be shut down by May 2015, to allow for the conversion. Operations will be limited in an effort to reduce pollution during the time leading up to the conversion shutdown. The repowering and

shutdown will reduce NO

x 

## emission s by approximately 98 percent, or 2,800 tons per year, and

will reduce SO 2 

## emissions by approximately 99.9 percent, or 2,800 tons per year. The emission reductions from this agreement go beyond those estimated from NJDEP ’ s performance standards

for E GUs i ncluded in Appendix A . A copy of the Administrative Consent Order can be found

online at: h ttp://www.nj.gov/dep/docs/20120613104728.pdf.

Monitoring Network

New Jersey has committed to tracki ng the air quality for continued attainment of the PM 2.5 

## NAAQS, and will work with EPA prior to making any changes to the existing PM 2.5 

## air monitoring network.

The State is obligated to work with EPA each year through the air monitoring network review process, as required by 40 CFR part 58 to determine: 1) the adequacy of the PM 2.5 

## monitoring network; 2) if additional monitoring is needed; and 3) if/when sites can be discontinued or

relocated. Any changes to the monitoring network, including replacin g or moving monitor(s) to new locations, as necessary, will be made through the air monitoring network review process. This review process undergoes a public comment period, and is subject to approval by the EPA. Air monitoring data will continue to be qua lity assured according to requirements in 40 CFR 58.

Copies of EPA’s air monitoring network approval letters for New Jersey can be found in the technical support documents for the determinations of attainment for the NY

- NJ

- CT and PA

- NJ

DE nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## and 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS, which are included in the docket of this rulemaking.

EPA has proposed to conclude that the State of New Jersey has met the requirement for continuing to operate an appropriate air monitoring n etwork.

Verification of continued attainment

Continued attainment of the PM 2.5 

## NAAQS in the state depends, in part, on the state's efforts towards tracking indicators of continued attainment during the maintenance period. New Jersey’s plan for verifying continued attainment of the PM 2.5 

## NAAQS consists of continued ambient

PM 2.5 

## air quality monitoring in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. New Jersey

## 31 will also continue to develop and submit periodic emission inventories as required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (codified at 40 CFR 51 Subpart A).

EPA has proposed to approve New Jersey’s plans for verifying continued attainment of the PM 2.5 

## NAAQS.

Contingency measures in the attainment plan

Section 175A of the CAA re quires that a maintenance plan include such contingency provision as EPA deems necessary to ensure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures, and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.

As required by section 175A of the CAA, New Jersey has included contingency provisions in the maintenance plan to address possible future annual PM 2.5 

## air quality problems. New Jersey will use the following triggers to determine the c ause of elevated levels, and implement contingency measures, as necessary, in accordance with the described schedule:

1. If monitored PM 2.5 

## concentrations in any year exceed the level of the NAAQS, NJDEP will perform a data assessment to determine the caus e of the violation. This assessment will be performed when the annual average PM 2.5 

## concentration for the previous year exceeds 15 μg/m 3 

## at any New Jersey monitoring site, or when the 98 th 

## percentile of the 24

- hour average daily concentrations exceeds 35 μg/m 3 

## at any New Jersey air monitoring site. NJDEP will perform this evaluation within six months of the data certification. New Jersey will work

with the other states in its shared multi

- state nonattainment areas as necessary.

2. If annual or 24

- hour PM 2. 5 

## design values exceed 15 μg/m 3 

## or 35 μg/m 3 

## , respectively, NJDEP will evaluate all appropriate data to determine the cause using the same analyses discussed in Item number 1. NJDEP will perform this evaluation within six months of the

determination of a vi olation.

3. Based on any findings, New Jersey will make a judgment on whether the violation was caused by an exceptional event or a violation of an existing rule or permit. The State will rely on one or more of the following contingency measures for any othe r violation:

- Onroad Vehicle Fleet Turnover : Emission reductions will be achieved from onroad motor vehicle fleet turnover from the existing State and Federal rules for motor vehicles. The

## 3 2 turnover of the onroad fleet of cars and trucks will result in addi tional NO

x 

## and PM emission reductions each year because the new vehicles have significantly lower

emission standards than th e vehicles they are replacing. The rules for this measure are already promulgated and are already being implemented.

- Nonroad Vehicl e and Equipment Fleet Turnover : Emission reductions will be achieved from nonroad vehicles and equipment fleet turnov er from existing Federal rules. The

turnover will result in additional NO

x 

## and PM emission reductions each year because the

new vehicles and equipment have lower emission standards than the vehicles and equipment they are replacing. The rules for this measure are already promulgated and are already being implemented.

- Low Sulfur Fuel Rule N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 9 (prior to July 2016) : The low sulfur f uel rule was adopted in August of 2010, with future effective limits in July 2014 and July 2016. If a violation occurs prior to the final effective date of the new limits in the rule (July 2016), significant additional SO 2 

## emission reductions will be achi eved after the new limits are implemented. Therefore, this measure can be applied as a contingency measure in the event of a violation between the time period of the redesignation to July 2016. The rules for this measure are already promulgated, but not yet fully implemented.

- Diesel Retrofit Program, Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program, N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 14

and 32 : Emission reductions will be achieved from New Jersey’s programs and rules for diesel retrofits, diesel inspection and maintenance and vehi cle idling, that are not included in the inventory demonstration in the maintenance plan. These programs provide real benefits that are not currently quantified in the inventory. The rules for these measures are already promulgated and are already being implemented.

4. If necessary, New Jersey will evaluate the feasibility and applicability of additional measures, how they relate to the cause and location of the violation, and if these additional measures would correct the violation. These may include:

- Ne w control measures that have been adopted for other purposes

- Residential wood burning strategies

- Fugitive dust reductions at stationary sources

- Lower particulate limits for No. 6 fuel oil

- fired boilers

- Lower particulate limits for stationary diesel engine s

- Working with the local metropolitan planning agencies to implement transportation control measures

NJDEP will perform this evaluation within six months of the determination of a violation. If it is determined that a new rule is required or appropriate to correct a violation of the NAAQS,

## 33 NJDEP will propose a new rule within 18 month, and take final action within 30 months, of the

determination of a violation.

New Jersey is relying on existing measures, which are already implemented, or have been

ad opted with future implementation dates, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS. The state has also included a commitment to further evaluate additional measures, if necessary and appropriate. EPA has propose to find that the New Jersey maintenance plan includes appropriate contingency measures to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation



# V

. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EPA has proposed to approve New Jersey’s request to redesignate the NNJ and SNJ areas from

nonatt ainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS.

EPA has determined that the NNJ and SNJ areas meet the requirements for redesignation under 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA . Specifically, EPA has determined that the areas have: (1) at tained the applicable NAAQS; (2) me t all applicable requirements under section 110 and p art D of the CAA; (3) a fully approved SIP u nder section 110 (k) of the CAA; (4) permanent and

enforceable air quality improvement; (5 ) and a fully approved maintenanc e plan that provides for

continued maintenance of the 1997 annual and the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## NAAQS.

## 34 Appendix A, Projected Emissions and Control Measure Benefits Summary 2007

- 2025

## 35 N NJ Area

- Projected Emissions and Control Mea sures Benefits 2007

- 2025

S ec t or F edera l or St a t e Con t ro l M ea s ur e Ne w J er s ey A d m i n i st r a t i v e Code U SE P A
A pproval P o ll u t a n t s 200 7 I nven t or y 202 5 I nven t or y

P M 2

. 5 t p y N Ox S O2 P M 2

. 5 N Ox S O2



### P O INT S O URC E S

P o i nt S our c e C o n t rol M eas ure B e n ef i ts

, p o s t 2007

P o i nt F edera l/

New
J E G U

- P S E & G Hud s o n Con s ent
De c rees NA NA P M

, S O 2 , N O

x NA NA NA 1

, 786 2

, 015 3

, 645

P o i nt F edera l/

New
J E G U

- P S E & G M er c e r Con s e n t
De c rees NA NA S O 2 NA NA NA NA NA 12

, 036

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey E GU

- O il an d G a s Fi re d B o il er s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 4

. 2

, 10

. 2,

19

. 4 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA NA 322 NA

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey E GU

- Coa l

- f i re d B o i l er s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 4

. 2

, 10

. 2,

19

. 4 8 / 3 / 2010 P M

, S O 2 , N O

x NA NA NA NA NA NA

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey E G U

- H i g h E l e ct r i c D e m an d Day (H E DD) N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 29 8 / 3 / 2010 S O 2 , N O

x NA NA NA NA NQ NQ

P o i nt F ederal I C I B o il e r M A CT NA NA PM NA NA NA 0 NA NA

P o i nt /A rea F ederal R I C E M A CT NA NA P M

, N O

x NA NA NA 1 72 NA

P o i nt F edera l/

New

J Re f i ner y Con s en t D e c ree s ( S unoco, V a l ero

, an d Con o c o P h i l li p s ) NA NA P M

, S O 2 , N O

x NA NA NA NA 1

, 140 NA

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey As pha l t P rodu c t i o n P l ant s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 9 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA NA 35 NA

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey Ca s e b y Ca s e N O

x E mi s s i o n L i m i t
De t er mi na t i o n s ( F SE L s / AE L s ) N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 13 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA NQ NQ NQ

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey Gl as s M anu f ac t ur i ng N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 10 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA NA NA NA

P o i nt /A rea Ne w J er s ey I C I B o il e r Ru le 2006 N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 16

. 8

, 19

. 7 7 / 31 / 2007 N O

x NA NA NA NA 43 NA

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey I C I B o il e r Ru le 2009 N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 7 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA NA 344 NA

P o i nt /A rea Ne w J er s ey Lo w S u l f u r D i s t ill a t e an d R e s i dua l F uel
St ra t eg i e s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 9 1 / 3 / 2012 S O 2 NA NA NA NA NA 391

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey M un i c i pa l W a st e C o m bus t or s ( I n c i nera t or s ) N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 13 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA NQ NQ NQ

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey S e w ag e an d S l udg e I n c i nera t or s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 28 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA NQ NQ NQ

T o ta l P o i nt S our c e C on t r o l M e a s ure Be n ef i ts , po s t 2007 NA NA NA 1

, 787 3

, 971 16

, 072

P o i nt S our c e E mi ssi on s , Gr o w t h O n l y NA NA NA 5

, 031 17

, 426 19

, 972

P o i nt S our c e E mi ssi ons G r o w n a nd C on t r o ll e d 4

, 937 15

, 827 20

, 359 3

, 243 13

, 454 3

, 900



### A R E A S O UR C E S

A r e a S our c e C on t r o l M eas ur e s Be n ef i ts

, po s t 2007

## 36 A re a F ederal Re s i den t i a l W oods t ov e N S P S (No t e 1) NA NA P M

, N O x

, C O, V OC NA NA NA 238 10 2

S ec t or F edera l or St a t e Con t ro l M ea s ur e Ne w J er s ey A d m i n i st r a t i v e Code U SE P A
A pproval P o ll u t a n t s 200 7 I nven t or y 202 5 I nven t or y

P M 2

. 5 t p y N Ox S O2 P M 2

. 5 N Ox S O2

P o i nt /A rea F edera l R I CE NA NA N O x

, P M NA NA NA 8 0 0

P o i nt /A rea F edera l/

New

J Co m b i ne d R I C E an d I C I B o il e r Ru l e 2006 N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 7 8 / 3 / 2010 N Ox NA NA NA 0 599 0

P o i nt /A rea Ne w J er s ey I C I B o il e r Ru l e2006 N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 7 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA 0 21 0

P o i nt /A rea Ne w J er s ey Lo w S u l f u r D i s t ill a t e an d R e s i dua l F uel
St ra t eg i e s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 27

. 9 1 / 3 / 2012 S O 2 NA NA NA 0 0 2

, 599

T o ta l A r e a S our c e Be n ef i ts , po s t 2007 NA NA NA 245 630 2

, 601

A r e a S our c e E mi s s i on s , G r o w t h On l y NA NA NA 5

, 862 16

, 688 3

, 757

A r e a S our c e E mi s s i ons Gr o wn a nd C on t r o ll e d 5

, 499 16

, 122 4

, 983 5

, 616 16

, 059 1

, 157



### O N

- R O A D S O UR C E S

On

- ro a d S our c e C on t r o l M eas u r e s

O nroad F ederal Heav y Du t y D i e s e l V eh i c le (HDD V )
De f ea t Dev i c e S e tt l e m ent NA NA N Ox NA NA NA NQ NQ NQ

O nroad F eder al Ti e r 2 V eh i c le P rogr a m / Lo w S u l f ur F ue ls NA NA P M

, N O x

, C O, V OC NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

O nroad F ederal Heavy

- Du t y H i g h w a y Ru le

- V eh i c l e St andard s an d D i e s e l F ue l S u l f ur Con t rol NA NA P M

, N O x

, C O, V OC NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

O nroad Ne w J er s ey D i e s e l I d li n g Ru le A m en d m ent s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 14

. 1

, 14

. 3 4 / 14 / 2009 P M

, N O x

, C O, V OC NA NA NA NQ NQ NQ

O nroad Ne w J er s ey D i e s e l I/ M P rogram N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 14 P M 2

. 5 , N O

x NA NA NA NQ NQ NQ

O nroad Ne w J er s ey Ne w J er s e y Lo w E mi s s i o n V eh i c le (L EV ) P rogra m N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 29 2 / 13 / 2008, upda t ed

9 / 28 / 1 0 per C A W a i ver P M

, S O 2 , N O

x , V O C

, NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

O nroad Ne w J er s ey I/ M P rogr a m f o r G a s o li n e V eh i c l e s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 15 5 / 21 / 2004 V O C, N O x

, CO NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

T o ta l On

- ro a d C on t rol M eas ure Be n ef i ts

, po s t 2007 NA NA NA 2

, 459 72

, 839 47

On

- ro a d E m i ssi on s , Gr o wn a n d C on t ro ll e d 3

, 677 93

, 385 586 1

, 218 20

, 546 539



### N O N

- R O A D S O UR C E S

On

- ro a d S our c e C on t r o l M eas u r e s

Nonroad F ederal D i e s e l M ar i n e E ng i n e s ove r 3 7 k W NA NA N O x

, V OC NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

## 37 Nonroad F ederal Larg e I ndu st r i a l S pa r k

- I gn i t i o n E ng i nes ove r 1 9 k W NA NA N O x

, CO NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

S ec t or F edera l or St a t e Con t ro l M ea s ur e Ne w J er s ey A d m i n i st r a t i v e Code U SE P A

A pproval P o ll u t a n t s 200 7 I nven t or y 202 5 I nven t or y

P M 2

. 5 t p y N Ox t p y S O2 t p y P M 2

. 5 t p y N Ox t p y S O2 t p y

Nonroad F ederal Lo c o m o t i v e E ng i n e s an d M ar i ne Co m pr e ss i on

- I gn i t i o n E ng i n e s L e s s T ha n 3 0 L i t e r s pe r Cy li nder NA NA P M

, N O x

, (C O, V O C) NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

Nonroad F ederal Nonroa d D i e s e l E ng i n e s NA NA P M

, N O x

, C O, V OC NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

Nonroad F ederal P ha s e 2 S t andard s f o r Ne w Nonroad
S par k

- I gn i t i o n Nonhandhe ld E ng i n es

a t o r be l o w 1 9 k W NA NA N O x, V O C

, CO NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

Nonroad F ederal P ha s e 2 S t andard s f o r S m a ll S pa r k

I gn i t i o n Handhe ld E ng i n e s a t o r b e l ow 1 9 k W NA NA N O x, V O C

, CO NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

Nonroad F ederal Re c rea t i ona l V eh i c l e s ( i n c l udes

s no w m ob il e s

, o ff

- h i gh w ay

m o t or c y c l es

, an d a l l

- t erra in veh i c l e s ) NA NA N O x

, C O, HC, NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

Nonroad F ederal G a s o li n e bo a t s an d per s onal

w a t er c ra ft

, o u t boar d eng i nes NA NA P M

, N O x

, C O, V OC NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

T o ta l N on
- ro a d C on t rol M eas ure Be n ef i ts , po s t 2007 NA NA NA 1

, 655 23

, 034 9

, 837

N on
- ro a d S our c e E mi s s i on s , G r o w t h O n l y NA NA NA 3

, 065 44

, 848 10

, 724

N on
- ro a d E m i ssi on s , Gr o wn a n d C on t r o ll e d 2

, 497 39

, 457 5

, 761 1

, 410 21

, 814 887



### T O T A L C O NT R O L M E A SU R E BENEFITS, po s t 20 0 7 NA NA NA 6

, 147 100

, 411 28

, 557



### T O T A L E M ISSI O NS, G R O W N A N D C O NTR O LLED 16

, 611 164

, 792 31

, 689 11

, 487 71

, 872 6

, 482



### Not es:

N A = N o t A pp l i c ab le

N Q = No t Q uan t i f i ed

, no t i nc l ude d in t h e ben e f it t o t al

1

. B en e f i t s f r o m are a s ou r c e Res i de n t i a l W oo d st ov e N S P S hav e b e e n adde d t o t h e "G ro w t h O n l y " T o t a l,

a s t he y ar e a c c oun t e d f o r in bo t h t h e "G ro w t h O n l y " an d "G ro w t h an d Con t ro ll ed " I nven t or i es

. 2

. I nc l ude d in t o t a l

, n o t quan t i f i e d i nd i v i dua lly

### S NJ Area

- Projected Emissions and Control Measures Benefits 2007

- 2025

S ect or F e d e r a l or
S tate C on t rol M eas ure Ne w Je r s e y A

d mi n i st r at i ve C ode U SE P A
A p pro val P o l l u ta n t s 200 7 I n ve n t o r y 202 5 I n ve n t o r y

P M 2

. 5 t p y N Ox t p y S O2 t p y P M 2

. 5

t p y N Ox

t p y S O2 t p y



### P O INT S O URC E S

P o i nt S our c e C o n t rol M eas ure B e n ef i ts

, p o s t 2007

P o i nt F edera l/ New
J er s ey E G U

- P S E & G Hud s o n Con s ent
De c rees NA NA P M

, S O 2 , N O

x NA NA NA NA NA NA

P o i nt F edera l/ New
J er s ey E G U

- P S E & G M er c e r Con s e n t
De c rees NA NA S O 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey E G U

- O il an d G a s Fi re d B o il er s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 4

. 2,

10

. 2

, 1 9

. 4 8 / 3 / 2010 S O 2 , N O

x NA NA NA NA 30 NA

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey E GU

- Coa l

- f i re d B o i l er s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 4

. 2,

10

. 2

, 1 9

. 4 8 / 3 / 2010 P M

, S O 2 , N O

x NA NA NA NA NA NA

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey E G U

- H i g h E l e ct r i c D e m an d Day (H E DD) N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 29 8 / 3 / 2010 S O 2 , N O

x NA NA NA NA NQ NQ

P o i nt F ederal I C I B o il e r M A CT NA NA PM NA NA NA 1 NA NA

P o i nt /A rea F ederal R I C E M A CT NA NA P M

, N O

x NA NA NA 0 2 NA

P o i nt F edera l/ New
J er s ey Re f i ner y Con s en t D e c ree s ( S unoco, V a l ero

, an d Con o c o P h i l li p s ) NA NA P M

, S O 2 , N O

x NA NA NA 50 375 804

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey As pha l t P rodu c t i o n P l ant s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 9 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA NA 5 NA

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey Ca s e b y Ca s e N O

x E mi s s i o n L i m i t
De t er mi na t i o n s ( F SE L s / AE L s ) N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 13 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA NQ NQ NQ

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey Gl as s M anu f ac t ur i ng N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 10 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA NA 2

. 7 NA

P o i nt /A rea Ne w J er s ey I C I B o il e r Ru le 2006 N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 16

. 8,
19

. 7 7 / 31 / 2007 N O

x NA NA NA NA 4 NA

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey I C I B o il e r Ru le 2009 N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 7 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA NA 79 NA

P o i nt /A rea Ne w J er s ey Lo w S u l f u r D i s t ill a t e an d R e s i dual

F ue l S t ra t eg i e s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 27

. 9 1 / 3 / 2012 S O 2 NA NA NA NA NA 66

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey M un i c i pa l W a st e C o m bus t or s ( I n c i nera t or s ) N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 13 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA NQ NQ NQ

P o i nt Ne w J er s ey S e w ag e an d S l udg e I n c i nera t or s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 28 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA NQ NQ NQ

T o ta l P o i nt S our c e C on t r o l M e a s ure Be n ef i ts , po s t 2007 NA NA NA 51 497 870

P o i nt S our c e E mi ssi on s , Gr o w t h O n l y NA NA NA 910 5

, 110 2

, 225

P o i nt S our c e E mi ssi ons G r o w n a nd C on t r o ll e d 799 4

, 453 2

, 035 859 4

, 432 1

, 355



### A R E A S O UR C E S

## 39 A r e a S our c e C on t r o l M eas ur e s Be n ef i ts

, po s t 2007

A re a F ederal Re s i den t i a l W oods t ov e N S P S (No t e 1) NA NA P M

, N O x

, C O, V OC NA NA NA 255 16 3

S ect or F e d e r a l or
S tate C on t rol M eas ure Ne w Je r s e y A

d mi n i st r at i ve C ode U SE P A

A p pro val P o l l u ta n t s 200 7 I n ve n t o r y 202 5 I n ve n t o r y

P M 2

. 5 t p y N Ox t p y S O2 t p y P M 2

. 5

t p y N Ox

t p y S O2 t p y

P o i nt /A rea F ederal R I CE NA NA N O x

, P M NA NA NA 1 0 0

P o i nt /A rea F edera l/ New
J er s ey Co m b i ne d R I C E an d I C I B o il e r Ru l e 2006 N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 7 8 / 3 / 2010 N Ox NA NA NA 0 109 0

P o i nt /A rea Ne w J er s ey I C I B o il e r Ru l e2006 N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 19

. 7 8 / 3 / 2010 N O

x NA NA NA 0 4 0

P o i nt /A rea Ne w J er s ey Lo w S u l f u r D i s t ill a t e an d R e s i dual
F ue l S t ra t eg i e s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 9 1 / 3 / 2012 S O 2 NA NA NA 0 0 584

T o ta l A r e a S our c e Be n ef i ts , po s t 2007 NA NA NA 257 129 587

A r e a S our c e E mi s s i on s , G r o w t h On l y NA NA NA 2

, 907 3

, 556 847

A r e a S our c e E mi s s i ons Gr o wn a nd C on t r o ll e d 2

, 8 57 3

, 483 1

, 129 2

, 651 3

, 427 260



### O N

- R O A D S O UR C E S

On

- ro a d S our c e C on t r o l M eas u r e s

O nroad F ederal Heav y Du t y D i e s e l V eh i c le (HDD V )

De f ea t Dev i c e S e tt l e m ent NA NA N Ox NA NA NA NQ NQ NQ

O nroad F ederal Ti e r 2 V eh i c le P rogr a m / Lo w S u l f ur F ue ls NA NA P M

, N O x

, C O, V OC NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

O nroad F ederal Heavy

- Du t y H i g h w a y Ru le

- V eh i c l e St andard s an d D i e s e l F ue l S u l f ur Con t rol NA NA P M

, N O x

, C O, V OC NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

O nroad Ne w J er s ey D i e s e l I d li n g Ru le A m e n d m ent s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 14

. 1,

14

. 3 4 / 14 / 2009 P M

, N O x

, C O, V OC NA NA NA NQ NQ NQ

O nroad Ne w J er s ey D i e s e l I/ M P rogram N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 14 P M 2

. 5 , N O

x NA NA NA NQ NQ NQ

O nroad Ne w J er s ey Ne w J er s e y Lo w E mi s s i o n V eh i c le (L EV ) P rogra m N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 29 2 / 13 / 2008

, upda t ed

9 / 28 / 1 0 per C A W a i ver P M

, S O 2 , N O

x , V O C

, NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

O nroad Ne w J er s ey I/ M P rogr a m f o r G a s o li n e V eh i c l e s N JA C 7 : 2 7

- 15 5 / 21 / 2004 V O C

, N O x

, CO NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

T o ta l On

- ro a d C on t rol M eas ure B e n ef i ts

, po s t 2007 NA NA NA 777 21

, 253 37

On

- ro a d E m i ssi on s , Gr o wn a n d C on t ro ll e d 1

, 055 26

, 992 161 278 5

, 739 124



### N O N

- R O A D S O UR C E S

On

- ro a d S our c e C on t r o l M eas u r e s

Nonroad F ederal D i e s e l M ar i n e E ng i n e s ove r 3 7 k W NA NA N O x

, V OC NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

## 40 Nonroad F ederal Larg e I ndu st r i a l S pa r k

- I gn i t i on E ng i ne s ove r 1 9 k W NA NA N O x

, CO NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

S ect or F e d e r a l or
S tate C on t rol M eas ure Ne w Je r s e y A

d mi n i st r at i ve C ode U SE P A

A p pro val P o l l u ta n t s 200 7 I n ve n t o r y 202 5 I n ve n t o r y

P M 2

. 5 t p y N Ox t p y S O2 t p y P M 2

. 5

t p y N Ox

t p y S O2 t p y

Nonroad F ederal Lo c o m o t i v e E ng i n e s an d M ar i ne Co m pr e ss i o n

- I gn i t i o n E ng i n e s L e s s T ha n 3 0 L i t e r s pe r Cy li nder NA NA P M

, N O x

, (C O, V O C) NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

Nonroad F ederal Nonroa d D i e s e l E ng i n e s NA NA P M

, N O x

, C O, V OC NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

Nonroad F ederal P ha s e 2 S t andard s f o r New

Nonroa d S par k

- I gn i t i on Nonhandhe ld E ng i ne s a t o r be l ow 1 9 k W NA NA N O x

, V O C,
CO NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

Nonr oad F ederal P ha s e 2 S t andard s f o r S m a ll S pa r k

I gn i t i o n Handhe ld E ng i n e s a t or be l o w 1 9 k W NA NA N O x

, V O C,
CO NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

Nonroad F ederal Re c rea t i ona l V eh i c l e s ( i n c l udes

s no w m ob il e s

, o ff

- h i gh w ay

m o t or c y c l es

, an d a l l

- t erra in
veh i c l e s ) NA NA N O x

, C O, HC, NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

Nonroad F ederal G a s o li n e bo a t s an d per s onal

w a t er c ra ft

, o u t boar d eng i nes NA NA P M

, N O x

, C O, V OC NA NA NA No t e 2 No t e 2 No t e 2

T o ta l N on
- ro a d C on t rol M eas ure Be n ef i ts , po s t 2007 NA NA NA 398 4

, 025 3

, 262

N on
- ro a d S our c e E mi s s i on s , G r o w t h O n l y NA NA NA 713 8

, 005 3

, 402

N on
- ro a d E m i ssi on s , Gr o wn a n d C on t r o ll e d 560 6

, 790 1

, 642 315 3

, 980 140



### T O T A L C O NT R O L M E A SU R E BENEFITS, po s t 20 0 7 NA NA NA 1

, 483 25

, 903 4

, 755



### T O T A L E M ISSI O NS

, G R O W N A N D C O NTR O LLED 5

, 271 41

, 718 4

, 966 4

, 103 17

, 578 1

, 879



### Not es:

N A = N o t A pp l i c ab le

N Q = No t Q uan t i f i ed

, no t i nc l ude d in t h e ben e f it t o t al

1

. B en e f i t s f r o m are a s ou r c e Res i den t i a l W oo d st ov e N S P S hav e b e e n adde d t o t h e "G ro w t h O n l y "

T o t a l, a s t he y ar e a c c oun t e d f o r in bo t h t h e "G ro w t h O n l y " an d "G ro w t h an d Con t ro ll ed " I nven t or i es

. 2

. I nc l ude d in t o t a l

, n o t quan t i f i e d i nd i v i dua lly

## A ppendix B

– New Jersey Control Measure Description

## 42 CONTROL MEASURES

This chapter discuss es the particulate matter related control measures implemented, or expected to be implemented in New Jersey, in the Northeast/Mid

- Atlantic Regions, and nationally. As discussed in detail in Chapter 1, oxides of nitrogen (NO

x 

## ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

## ), in addition to direct fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 

## ), are the precursors of concern for PM 2.5 

## SIP

- related activity. This chapter focuses on those measures designed to decrease one or more of these pollutants specifically. This section explains the terminol ogy related to control measures used throughout Chapter 5 (the PM 2.5 

## attainment demonstration chapter); provides a summary of how the control measures were identified; and gives a brief synopsis of each control measure considered in Chapter 5. A summary o f the identified control measures is shown in Table 4.5. The benefits from the implementation of these measures, and the benefit calculations, are discussed in the State’s attainment demonstration in Chapter 5, contingency plan in Chapter 6, and appendix to Chapter 6. Note that this chapter only provides a discussion of control measures not included in the baseline (2002) emission inventory. Existing controls, such as the New Jersey inspection and maintenance (I/M) program for gasoline vehicles prior to the initiation of mandatory on

- board diagnostic inspections and pre

- 2002 reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules are not included in this chapter. Those controls are included in the 2002 baseline inventory. In addition to addressing PM 2.5 

## em issions, the measures discussed in this chapter are also expected to have an impact on controlling regional haze, the primary constituent of which is PM 2.5



## .

Terminology

On The Books (OTB)

– “On the Books (OTB)” control measures (State or Federal) are co ntrol measures that were a) adopted before 2002, but have implementation dates after 2002, or obtain additional benefits after 2002, due to turnover of products, equipment, or vehicles (the benefits

from these measures are not included in the State’s 2002 base year emissions inventory); or b) adopted and implemented after 2002. An example of an OTB measure for New Jersey is the

NO

x 

## Budget Program, which went into effect May 1, 1999; a lower NO

x 

## emission cap was required effective May 1, 2003

.

Beyond On Th e Way (BOTW)

– These control measures (state, regional, or Federal) are proposed by New Jersey as part of the effort to reach attainment by April 5, 2010. 4



## On the Books Controls

The following section provides descriptions of the New Jersey and Federal OTB measures that

are included in the State’s attainment demonstration.

New Jersey

4 

### According to USEPA guidance, areas that have an attainment date of no later than April 5, 2010 must implement

the emission reductions needed for attainment no later than 2009. Source: USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Att ainment Demonstrations for the 8

- hour Ozone NAAQS, United States Environmental Protection Agency, October 2005.

## 43 Pre

- 2002 with benefits achieved Post

- 2002

– On the books

New Jersey NO

x 

## Budget Program (SIP Call) : On September 27, 1994, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) agreed to deve lop a regional program to achieve significant reductions in

NO

x 

## emissions from large combustion sources. This program called for the establishment of a

NO

x 

## cap and trade program, as well as the establishment of an emissions cap or “budget” for all

affecte d sources that in total must not be exceeded during each control period, beginning in

1999. The NO

x 

## SIP Call is a similar regional NO

x 

## reduction measure designed by the USEPA, in part, as a result of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group’s (OTAG) final rec ommendation report addressing ozone transport over the Eastern United States. 5 

## New Jersey adopted its NO

x 

## Budget Program 6 

## in 1998. The base emission budget of 17,340 tons of NO

x 

## was established for the years 1999

- 2002. This was approximately 65 percent less than 1990 emission levels and was termed Phase II. In 2003, the NO

x 

## SIP Call replaced Phase III of the OTC’s program with a reduction of the base emission budget to 8,200 tons. The NO

x 

## SIP Call also expanded the geographical area beyond the Ozone Tr ansport Region to the south and the west. The NO

x 

## SIP Call will continue through the ozone season of 2008, at which point it will be superseded by the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The NO

x 

## Budget Program covers primarily electric generating units (EG Us) and some non

- EGUs. The equipment covered by the NO

x 

## Budget Program include fossil fuel fired indirect heat exchangers with a maximum rated heat input capacity of at least 250 million British thermal units (MMBtu) per hour and electric generating units with a rated output of at least 15 megawatts (MW). The USEPA approved the State’s NO

x 

## SIP Call program on May 22, 2001. 7



## Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) : The Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7503

, requires new or modified major sources to instal l the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate ( LAER) control equipment and obtain greater than one for one emission offsets in order to locate in a nonattainment area. Thus, the NNSR program provides for continual emission reductions to help improve the air quali ty in the nonattainment area and further downwind. In New Jersey, any significant new, reconstructed, or modified significant source is also required to install state of the art (SOTA) control technology (similar to Best Available Control Technology (BACT ) or LAER for major sources). SOTA, which is a minor NSR program, also results in reductions in

the actual emissions from the facilities. New Jersey’s

SOTA requirements, denominated in the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act as “advances in

the art o f air pollution control,” mandate BACT or LAER, as appropriate, if the equipment or control apparatus is subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) regulations. 8

5 

### USEPA. 1998 Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) Final Report. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Ozone Transport Assessment G roup. Accessed from: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/rto/otag/finalrpt/.

6 

### N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 31

7 

### 66 Fed. Reg. 28063

- 66 (May 22, 2001).

8 

### New Jersey’s Air Pollution Control Act (1954).

## 44 Post 2002

– On the books

New Jerse y Measures Done Through a Regional Effort

NO

x 

## RACT Rule (2006) : The NJDEP adopted amendments to N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19, Control and

Prohibition of Air Pollution from NO

x 

## , on September 8, 2005. The amendments were based on the OTC’s March 6, 2001 model rules to control NO

x 

## emissions tied to shortfall measures. The OTC model rules were created as the result of the agreement formally set forth in a “Memorandum of Understanding Among the States of the Ozone Transport Commission Regarding the Development of Specifi c Control Measures to Support Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards" (MOU), which was approved by the OTC on June 1, 2000. Specifically, the New Jersey amendments apply to owners and operators of certain stationary sources of NO

x 

## emissions, including industrial/commercial/institutional (ICI) boilers, combustion turbines, and reciprocating engines. Owners and operators of such sources are required to achieve the emission limit specified in the rules or to comply ins tead with alternative requirements, such as an emission averaging plan, an alternative maximum allowable emission rate or a plan for phased compliance (repowering or use of innovative technology). The amendments also regulate distributed generation 9 

## of

el ectricity, consistent with the OTC recommendation in its March 28, 2001 “Resolution of the States of the Ozone Transport Commission Concerning the Creation of incentives for Additional Distributed Generation of Electric Power.” The USEPA issued final appr oval of the New Jersey SIP revision, including these rule amendments on July 31, 2007. 10 

## The rules became effective August 30, 2007.

New Jersey Only Measures

New Jersey Heavy Duty Diesel Rules, Including “Not

- To

- Exceed” (NTE) Requirements : The NJDEP adop ted new rules and amendments on October 28, 2001 to N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 26 that added requirements for new heavy

- duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) equipped with model year 2005 and newer heavy

- duty diesel engines (HDDEs) sold in New Jersey. Specifically, the rulema king required these new HDDEs to be certified as meeting California’s HDDE requirements. These requirements include both the federal emission standards applicable to all model year 2004 and newer HDDEs, plus a number of testing procedures which the USEPA required for model year 2007 and newer HDDEs. The NTE test procedure is so called because it is used to demonstrate that an engine does not exceed, under a wide variety of operating conditions, an emissions cap of

1.25 times the Federal Test Procedure emi ssion standard. For this reason, the California requirements are often referred to as the NTE requirements. California promulgated these NTE requirements to address a temporal gap of two years between the end of the requirements set

forth in the consent decrees entered into by seven major HDDE manufacturers and the effective date of equivalent federal testing requirements. It was anticipated that the adoption of the NTE

9 

### Distributed generation is a system composed of generation located ne ar the energy consumer’s site that may be integrated with the electric grid to provide multiple benefits on both sides of the utility meter. Source: CECA. Distributed Generation Facts, Consumer Energy Council of America, http://www.cecarf.org/Programs/DG /DGFacts.html.

10 

### 72 Fed. Reg. 41626

- 41629 (July 31, 2007).

## 45 requirements by states regulating the majority of HDDEs sold in the United States wou ld encourage and provide incentive for engine manufacturers to produce only engines meeting the NTE requirements.

On October 25, 2005, the NJDEP adopted new rules, rule amendments, recodifications and repeals of rule provisions to clarify and supplement t he existing requirements for the sale, for use or registration in New Jersey, of certain HDDVs and HDDEs, model years 2007 and later. The rulemaking did not impose any new standards for model year 2007 and later HDDEs per se; rather, it served to clarify the finer points of the application of CARB

- certification requirements to model year 2007 and beyond, since CARB’s standards for those model years are significantly different from the NTE requirements and standards for model years 2005 and 2006, and were n ot discussed in the NJDEP’s 2001 rulemaking. In addition, a prohibition of the practice known as “stockpiling” was added. Stockpiling is the practice of purchasing vehicles and/or engines earlier than necessary in order to avoid more stringent emission s tandards. Finally, the NJDEP added provisions that would, in the event that the provisions of the Federal 2007 rule are not in effect, require recordkeeping and reporting of the sale, for use in New Jersey, of model year and

later HDDEs. The Federal 2007 rule was promulgated by the USEPA on January 18, 2001 to take effect for model year 2007.

On

- Board Diagnostics (I/M) Program for Gasoline Vehicles : A number of changes to New Jersey’s I/M program for gasoline vehicles were implemented after 2002. The tw o program changes that materially impacted vehicle emissions were the extension for the new vehicle emission inspection from one inspection cycle (i.e., 2 years) to two inspection cycles (i.e., 4 years) and the initiation of mandatory on

- board diagnostic ( OBD) inspections for model year 1996 and newer vehicles. The OBD test largely replaced the dynamometer based Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM5015) exhaust test for these newer vehicles. New Jersey submitted a

SIP revision that contained the resul ts of performance standard modeling for these I/M program changes on November 27, 2002. 11 

## The USEPA subsequently approved this SIP revision. 12



## Federal

Pre

- 2002 with benefits achieved Post 2002

– On the books

Residential Woodstove New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) : The USEPA New Source Performance emission standards for new wood burning stoves 13 

## and fireplace inserts were

11 

### NJDEP. Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program for the State of New Jersey Revised Performance Standard Modeling SIP Revision. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Nove mber 27, 2002. Available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/sip/4year/4yrexempt_fin.doc.

12 

### 68 Fed. Reg. 7704

- 06 (February 18, 2003).

## 46 implemented in 1992. These standards are 7.5 grams of particulate matter per hour for non

catalytic controlled units and 4.1 gra ms of particulate matter per hour for catalytic controlled units. There are no control requirements for fireplace inserts or wood stove units manufactured prior to 1992, and these units emit from 30 to 70 grams of particulate matter per hour. The

USEPA i ndicates that they do not have any plans to update the NSPS anytime soon. Instead, the USEPA is choosing to focus on voluntary wood stove change

- out programs, rather than new

standards.

Acid Rain : Title IV of the Clean Air Act set a goal of reducing annu al SO 2 

## emissions by 10 million tons below 1980 levels. To achieve these reductions, the law required a two

- phase tightening of the restrictions placed on fossil fuel

- fired power plants. Phase I began in 1995, and affected 263 units at 110 mostly coal

- bur ning electric utility plants located in 21 eastern and

mid

- western states. An additional 182 units joined Phase I of the program as substitution or compensating units, bringing the total of Phase I affected units to 445. Phase II, which began in the year 2000, tightened the annual emissions limits imposed on these large, higher emitting plants and also set restrictions on smaller, cleaner plants fired by coal, oil, and gas, encompassing over 2,000 units in all. The program affects existing utility units serving generators with an output capacity of greater than 25 megawatts and all new utility units.

The Clean Air Act also called for a two million ton reduction in NO

x 

## emissions by the year 2000. This has been superseded with the more stringent NO

x 

## caps in CAIR, discussed below.

The Acid Rain Program utilizes an allowance trading system where affected utility units are allocated allowances based on their historic fuel consumption and a specific emissions rate. Each allowance permits a unit to emit one t on of SO 2 

## during or after a specified year. For each

ton of SO 2 

## emitted in a given year, one allowance is retired, that is, it can no longer be used. Allowances may be bought, sold, or banked. Anyone may acquire allowances and participate in

the tradin g system. However, regardless of the number of allowances a source holds, it may not

emit at levels that would violate Federal or state limits set under Title I of the Clean Air Act to protect public health including limits set by SIPs, such as this SIP. During Phase II of the program (now in effect), the Clean Air Act set a ceiling (or cap) of 8.95 million SO 2 

## allowances

for total annual allowance allocations to utilities.

Tier 1 Vehicle Program : Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7521, the USEPA promulgated regul ations which revised the tailpipe standards of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) for light duty vehicles and light duty trucks. 14 

## These standards, known as Tier 1, were implemented in phases beginning with the 1994 model year. The Tier 1 s tandards encompassed pollutants previously regulated (that is, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter), as well

as the addition of non

- methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). The standards themselves are a function of vehicle class, pollutant, usef ul life, engine cycle, and fuel. The Tier 1 rulemaking also

13 

### A wood burning stove is defined as a free standing enclosed wood

- burning unit, vented to the atmosphere, and designed to provide heat to a home. In contrast, a fireplace insert is defined as a self

- enclosed unit that sits within a masonry structure, vented to the atmosphere, that is not designed as a primary heating source for a home. The

USEPA emission standards do not c over masonry

- constructed fireplaces without fireplace inserts, but these unique fireplaces are thought to account for a very small segment of the wood burning conducted in the New Jersey.

14 

### 56 Fed. Reg. 25724 (June 5, 1991).

## 47 established new intermediate and full useful life 15 

## levels for air pollution control devices on light

- duty vehicles and light

- duty trucks, as well as new vehicle weight classes. The regulation

af

fected petroleum and methanol

- fueled motor vehicles.

National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV) : The NLEV 16 

## program required automobile manufacturers to meet more stringent new car standards, starting with the 1999 model year in the

OTC states and start ing with the 2001 model year in the remainder of the nation, except for California. New Jersey participated in the NLEV program for the model year 2006, after which New Jersey came under the Federal Tier 2 program. New Jersey subsequently adopted the Low Emission Vehicle II (LEV II) program, which becomes effective for vehicles delivered for sale in New Jersey on and after January 1, 2009.

Tier 2 Vehicle Program/Low Sulfur Fuels : On February 10, 2000, the USEPA promulgated rules for its comprehensive T ier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program. 17 

## These regulations are designed to treat a vehicle and its fuel as a system, resulting in multiple efforts to reduce highway source emissions. In addition to requiring new tailpipe emissions standards for all passenger vehicles, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), minivans, vans and pick

- up trucks, the USEPA simultaneously promulgated regulations to lower the sulfur standard in gasoline. These regulations phased in

between 2004 and 2007.

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Def eat Device Settlement : On October 22, 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice and the USEPA announced a settlement with seven major diesel engine manufacturers to resolve claims that they installed computer software on 1993 through 1998 model year heavy

- duty diesel engines which was designed to disengage the engine’s emission control system during highway driving. 18 

## The settlement, involving Caterpillar, Inc., Cummins Engine Company, Detroit Diesel Corporation, Mack Trucks, Inc., Navistar International Transp ortation Corporation, Renault Vehicles Industries, S.A., and Volvo Truck Corporation, included an $83.4 million total penalty. The settlement also required the manufacturers to offer software updates (chip reflash) at no cost to the truck owners at the ti me of engine rebuild.

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Engine Standards : 19 

## On July 31, 2000, the USEPA issued a final rule for the first phase of its two

- part strategy to significantly reduce harmful diesel emissions from heavy

- duty trucks and buses. Thi s rule finalized new diesel engine standards beginning in 2004, for all diesel vehicles over 8,500 pounds. Additional diesel standards and test procedures in this final rule began in 2007. This new rule required heavy

- duty gasoline engines

to meet new, m ore stringent standards starting no later than the 2005 model year. According to the USEPA, these new standards require gasoline trucks to emit 78 percent less NO

x 

## and hydrocarbons, and diesel trucks to emit 40 percent less NO

x 

## and hydrocarbons, than curr ent models. The second phase of the program required cleaner diesel fuels and cleaner engines,

15 

### Useful life is the number of years that the vehicle is expected to be in use.

16 

### For more information on NLEV, see USEPA website at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/lev

- nlev.htm.

17 

### 65 Fed. Reg. 6698

- 746 (February 10, 2000).

18 

### For more information, see USEPA’s web page on Heavy Duty Diesel Engin e Consent Decree Documents at www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/diesel/condec.html.

19 

### For more information, see the USEPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/hd

- hwy.htm.

## 48 reducing air pollution from trucks and buses by another 90 percent. The USEPA issued the final rule, to take effect in 2006

- 2007 on January 18, 2001. 20



## Nonro ad Diesel Engines : In June 1994, the USEPA promulgated regulations to control volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NO

x 

## and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from diesel

- powered compression ignition engines at or greater than 50 horsepower (hp), i.e., bulldozers

. 21 

## These Tier 1 standards phased in from 1996 to 2000. In October 1998, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated regulations to control VOC, NO

x 

## and

carbon monoxide emissions from diesel

- powered compression ignition engines f or all engine

sizes. 22 

## This rule includes Tier 1 standards for engines under 50 horsepower (hp) (i.e., lawn tractors), Tier 2 standards for all engine sizes, and more stringent Tier 3 standards for engines rated over 50 hp. The new Tier 3 standards are ex pected to lead to control technologies similar to those that will be used by manufacturers of highway heavy

- duty engines to comply with the 2004 highway engines standards. 23 

## The new Tier 1 standards were phased in between the years 1999 and 2000, Tier 2 st andards between 2001 and 2006, and Tier 3 between 2006 and 2008. Large Industrial Spark

- Ignition Engines over 19 kilowatts : Spark

- ignition nonroad engines are mostly powered by liquefied petroleum gas, with others operating on gasoline or compressed

natur al gas. These engines are used in commercial and industrial applications, including forklifts, electric generators, airport baggage transport vehicles, and a variety of farm and construction applications.

In September 2002, the USEPA adopted new standar ds to regulate these engines. 24 

## The

emission standards are two

- tiered. The Tier 1 standards, which started in 2004, are based on a simple laboratory measurement using steady

- state procedures. The Tier 2 standards, starting in 2007, are based on transient testing in the laboratory, which ensures that the engines will control emissions when they operate under changing speeds and loads in the different kinds of equipment.

Also included is an option for manufacturers to certify their engines to different em ission levels to reflect the fact that decreasing NO

x 

## emissions tend to increase carbon monoxide emissions (and vice versa). In addition to these exhaust

- emission controls, manufacturers must take steps starting in 2007 to reduce evaporative emissions, su ch as using pressurized fuel tanks. Tier 2 engines are also required to have engine diagnostic capabilities that alert the operator to malfunctions in the engine’s emission

- control system. The rule also includes special standards to allow for measuring e missions without removing engines from equipment.

Recreational Vehicles : Recreational vehicles include snowmobiles, off

- highway motorcycles,

and all

- terrain

- vehicles (ATVs). In September 2002, the USEPA adopted new standards to regulate nonroad recreatio nal engines and vehicles. 25 

## The standards that affect PM 2.5 

## emissions

20 

### 66 Fed. Reg. 5002

- 50 (Janu ary 18, 2001).

21 

### 59 Fed. Reg. 31306 (June 17, 1994).

22 

### 63 Fed. Reg. 56968

- 7023 (October 23, 1998).

23 

### USEPA. Regulatory Announcement: New Emission Standards for Nonroad Diesel Engines. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Mobile Sourc es, EPA420

- F

- 98

- 034, August 1998.

24 

### 67 Fed. Reg. 68242

- 447 (November 8, 2002).

25 

### 67 Fed. Reg. 68242

- 447 (November 8, 2002).

## 49 are presented in Table 4.1. As shown by this table, only the new standards for off

- highway motorcycles and ATVs will reduce NO

x 

## , a PM 2.5 

## precursor.

Table 4.1 : Summary of Emission Stand ards for Recreational Vehicles

Vehicle Model year Emission standards Phase

- in

HC*+NO

x 

## g/km CO g/km

Off

- highway Motorcycle 2006 2.0 25.0 50%

2007 and later 2.0 25.0 100%

ATV 2006 1.5 35.0 50%

2007 and later 1.5 35.0 100%

Federal Compression Ig nition Marine Engine Regulations (Commercial Marine Engines) : 26

, 27 

## In 1999, the USEPA promulgated regulations for commercial marine diesel engines over 37 kilowatts (kW), including engines with per cylinder displacement up to 30 liters. 28 

## This rule

establish ed VOC and NO

x 

## emission standards, starting in 2004, for new engines with per cylinder displacement up to 2.5 liters. This rule also established standards in 2007 for engines with per cylinder displacement between 2.5 and 30 liters. 29 

## The engines covered by this rule are divided into two categories: Category 1 : rated power at or above 37 kW

- specific displacement of less than 5 liters per cylinder. These engines are primarily found in fast ferries. Category 2 : rated power at or above 37 kW

- specific di splacement greater than or equal to 5, but less than 30, liters per cylinder. These engines are primarily found in tug and towboats.

Federal Small Spark Ignition Engine Regulations : In July 1995, the USEPA promulgated the first phase of its regulations t o control emissions from new nonroad spark ignition engines. 30 

## This regulation established VOC and carbon monoxide emission standards for all model year 1997 31


## and newer nonroad spark ignition engines that have a gross power output at or below 19

kilowatts. These engines are used principally in lawn and garden equipment, including, but not limited to, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, trimmers, chainsaws, and generators. In March 1999, the USEPA promulgated Phase 2 regulations to control emissions from new nonroa d spark ignition engines. 32 

## These regulations established tighter VOC and NO

x 

## standards for non

- handheld equipment such as lawn mowers and commercial turf equipment. The new standards were

26 

### For more information, see the USEPA’s regulatory announcement on Emission Standards for New Commercial Marine Diesel Engines at ht tp://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/fr/f99043.pdf

. 27 

### The USEPA has not finalized Tier 2 standards for Category 3 commercial marine engines. The USEPA will promulgate final Tier 2 standards for Category 3 engines on or before December 17, 2009. ( “Category 3” means relating to a marine engine with a specific engine displacement greater than or equal to 30 liters per cylinder).

Source: 40 C.F.R. §§ 94.1, 94.8; 72 Fed. Reg. 20948

- 52 (April 27, 2007).

28 

### 64 Fed. Reg. 73300

- 73 (December 29, 1999).

29 

### US EPA. Technical Highlights: Organization of Gasoline and Diesel Marine Engine Emission Standards. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Mobile Sources, EPA420

- F

- 99

- 046. December 1999.

30 

### 60 Fed. Reg. 34582

- 657 (July 3, 1995).

31 

### Ibid; Mod el year 1997 is defined as “The 1997 model year will run from January 2, 1996 to December 31, 1997.”

32 

### 64 Fed. Reg. 15208

- 55 (March 30, 1999).

## 50 phased in between the years 2001 and 2007. In March 2000, the USE PA promulgated additional Phase 2 regulations to control emissions from new nonroad spark ignition engines. 33 

## This regulation established tighter VOC, NO

x 

## , and carbon monoxide standards for handheld equipment such as string trimmers (i.e., weed whackers), leaf blowers and chainsaws. The new standards were phased in between the years 2002 to 2007.

Post 2002

– Federal On the Books

Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT : On September 13, 2004, the USEPA established a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (M ACT) that applies to industrial, commercial, and institutional units firing solid fuel (coal, wood, waste, biomass) which have a design capacity greater than 10 MMBtu/hr and are located at a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). 34 

## See the discu ssion on HAPs under USEPA MACT Standards. This rule was subsequently vacated by the courts, triggering the Section 112(j) provisions of the Clean Air Act. NJDEP is participating in the National Association of Clean Air Agencies’ (NACAA) efforts to

develo p MACT guidance for use by states and expects to do case

- by

- case MACT in 2009.

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) : The CAIR was the USEPA’s attempt to address the interstate transport of ozone and fine particulate precursors by requiring emission reductions of SO 2 

## and

NO

x 

## . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled (see Chapter 8) that the CAIR does not meet these objectives within and the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act and remanded it to the USEPA. While the USEPA is working on a repl acement program, the existing CAIR program remains in place.

The CAIR expects to obtain these reductions from large electric generating units (EGUs greater than 25 MW) through three cap

- and

- trade programs: ozone season NO

x 

## , annual NO

x 

## and annual

SO 2 

## . Th e CAIR ozone season NO

x 

## cap and trade program essentially replaces the NO

x 

## Budget Program with lower caps and an expanded geographical region to the south and west of the NO

x 

## SIP Call region. The CAIR also creates new annual NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## cap and trade prog rams. The

annual NO

x 

## trading program is modeled after the NO

x 

## Budget Program, expanded for the entire year. New Jersey adopted the new rules for the CAIR NO

x 

## Trading Program on July 16, 2007, and the USEPA approved these rules on October 1, 2007. 35 

## The n ew CAIR rules will allow New Jersey to allocate NO

x 

## allowances to New Jersey sources beginning 2009.

New Jersey did not take any action on the SO 2 

## trading program. There is no allocation of SO 2 

## allowances for CAIR, but instead, CAIR uses the SO 2 

## allowanc es allocated under the Acid Rain Program. CAIR reduces the SO 2 

## emissions from the Acid Rain Phase II level by applying

increased retirement ratios to the Acid Rain SO 2 

## allowances. Under the CAIR, pre

- 2010 vintage

SO 2 

## allowances are worth 1.0 ton of SO 2 

## e mission; 2010

- 2014 vintage SO 2 

## allowances are worth

0.5 ton of SO 2 

## emissions; and post

- 2014 vintage SO 2 

## allowances are worth 0.35 ton of SO 2 

## emissions. This effectively reduces SO 2 

## emissions further below the Title IV level without creating a new currency

.

33 

### 65 Fed. Reg. 24268

- 314 (April 25, 2000).

34 

### 69 Fed. Reg. 55218

- 86 (September 13, 2004).

35 

### 72 Fed. Reg. 55666

- 72 (October 1, 2007).

## 51 Refinery Enforcement Initiative, Consent Decrees (Sunoco, Valero and ConocoPhillips) : The USEPA and various state and local agencies have negotiated Consent Decrees with the major refineries to elicit emission reductions from five major refinery proces ses. The processes are Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCUs) and Fluid Coking Units (FCUs), Process Heaters and

Boilers, Flare Gas Recovery, Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR), and Benzene/Wastewater. The New Jersey refineries with settlements as of Marc h 2008 include Sunoco, Valero and ConocoPhillips.

For FCCUs/FCUs, the Consent Decree control requirements generally require the installation of wet gas scrubbers for SO 2 

## control, and selective catalytic reduction (SCR), selective non

catalytic reduction ( SNCR), or other measures to reduce NO

x 

## emissions.

For process boilers/heaters, the control requirements for SO 2 

## emissions generally require the elimination of burning solids/liquid fuels. For NO

x 

## emissions, the control requirements generally apply to uni ts greater than 40 MMBtu per hour capacity or larger. In many cases, the Consent

Decrees establish NO

x 

## emission reduction objectives across a number of refineries that are owned by the same firm. Therefore, the companies decide which individual boilers/h eaters to control as well as the control techniques to apply.

The Consent Decrees also included enhanced leak detection and repair programs (e.g., reducing the defined leak concentration) and other VOC requirements. The settlements are expected to produc e additional SO 2 

## , NO

x 

## , and VOC emissions reductions for flare gas recovery and wastewater operations. While the Consent Decrees have various phase

- in dates, significant emission reductions are expected prior to the summer of 2009.

Beyond On The Way Cont rols

The following sections discuss how beyond on the way (BOTW) measures (both regional initiatives and state only) were identified and provides descriptions of the BOTW measures

included in the State’s attainment demonstration.

Identifying Measures

New Jersey participated in a wide variety of processes aimed at identifying viable control measures that could be implemented to help the State reach its PM 2.5 

## attainment goals. The following section briefly discusses those processes, and the measures ide ntified as viable through those processes that the State is moving forward to propose.

Regional Activities

New Jersey is an active member of four regional organizations, each with a unique focus with respect to either geographic area, air pollution conce rn or both. These organizations include:

## 52 The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), a multi

- state organization created under the Clean Air Act to advise the USEPA on ozone transport issues and develop and implement regional solutions to the ground

- level ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid

- Atlantic regions.

Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA), a non

- profit association of ten state and local air pollution control agencies whose mission is to strengthen the skills and capabilities of mem ber agencies and to help them work together to prevent and reduce air pollution in the Mid

- Atlantic Region.

Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), a nonprofit association of air quality agencies in the Northeast designed to provid e scientific, technical, analytical, and policy support to the air quality programs of the eight Northeast states.

The Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU), which was formed by the Mid

Atlantic and Northeastern states, tribes, and Federal ag encies to coordinate regional haze planning activities for the region.

All of these organizations had an active role in the technical support work associated with this

SIP revision. MANE

- VU supported the regional inventory work that was utilized in the r egional attainment modeling effort (see Chapter 5) and was responsible for coordinating the Regional Haze effort, which resulted in control measures that will yield PM 2.5 

## reduction benefits (see Section 4.3.1.4). The efforts of the OTC and MARAMA identifi ed control measures that would result in reductions of ozone, PM 2.5 

## , and regional haze. The ozone control measures identified by these processes are expected to result in PM 2.5 

## and regional haze benefits due to either shared precursors (NO

x 

## ) or tangent re duction benefits (controls would also result in direct PM 2.5 

## and/or

SO 2 

## emission reductions). NESCAUM focused on control measures more closely linked with

PM 2.5 

## and regional haze reductions (mainly low sulfur fuel for industrial, commercial and

residentia l facilities). The efforts of these regional organizations are summarized in the following sections.

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)

New Jersey worked with other jurisdictions in the Ozone Transport Region to explore reasonable control measures for pot entially significant emission reductions. To accomplish this, the OTC staff and member jurisdictions formed workgroups to: 1) review mobile, point, and area source categories, 2) identify candidate source categories, and 3) consider potential control stra tegies for those source categories to reduce NO

x 

## , VOC, and SO 2 

## emissions.

Each OTC workgroup focused on a different sector (mobile/point/area) and compiled a list of viable control measures from sources published by the USEPA and various regional associat ions,

OTC member state

- specific control strategies already in place, and emission control initiatives from states outside the Ozone Transport Region, such as California. Then using 2002 emission inventories as the base year, the workgroups determined proj ected 2009 emission reductions based on currently existing controls, including Federal rules, adoption of previous OTC model rules by member jurisdictions, enforcement settlements, and other state

- specific control measures, and estimated growth of inventor ies. Based on the review of the list of control

## 53 measures and the emission inventories, the workgroups developed a preliminary list 36 

## of candidate control measures thought to be most effective in reducing emission levels throughout the Ozone Transport Regi on.

From this preliminary list, the OTC workgroups developed white papers, summarizing key facts about the relevant control alternatives. The white papers provided information, such as descriptions of source categories and candidate control measures, 200 2 base year emissions, 2009 projected emissions after implementation, preliminary cost estimates, current federal and state regulations, methods of implementation, applicability, and geographic impact. Some of the papers reflected inter

- regional efforts, such as those by the MARAMA for refineries, by the NESCAUM for heating oil, and by the super

- regional discussions with the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MWRPO) regarding Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI)

boilers and Electric Generati ng Units (EGUs). Using a scale of recommendations from one (definitely recommended) to five (not recommended), the member jurisdictions ranked the relative importance of the source categories and control strategies based on a qualitative

assessment of the information presented in the white papers. After consideration of the estimated costs and magnitude of reductions potentially achievable for the selected emission sources, the OTC member jurisdictions identified reasonable control measures for a variety of source categories. Both during and after the ranking process, the OTC received written comments from stakeholders, held public meetings, and interfaced with impacted industries to better understand the source categories and how to regulate them effecti vely. The final list of source categories recommended by OTC for member jurisdictions to consider for emission reductions are presented in Table 4.2.

The OTC efforts focused on VOC and NO

x 

## reductions for the purpose of reducing ozone. New Jersey evaluat ed the control measures identified by the OTC for NO

x 

## measures that would have a

PM 2.5 

## reduction benefit. Although the OTC efforts did not have a primary focus on control strategies for direct PM 2.5 

## , New Jersey evaluated related direct PM 2.5 

## reduction str ategies through its Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) analyses discussed in Sections 4.3.1.5.3 and 4.3.1.5.4, respectively.

Table 4.2 : Final OTC Control Measure Source Categories 37

, 38



## Sect or Source Category

36 

### To review the preliminary list of OTC

- identified control measures that were further evaluated for potential emission reductions, see the OTC web site at http://www.otcair.org/document.asp?fview=Report.

37 

### Measures that are shaded are ex pected to have a NO

x 

### emission reduction benefit in New Jersey.

38 

### The following programs that are listed in Table 4.3 are not discussed in New Jersey’s proposed SIP document: 1) Regional Fuel based on Reformulated Gasoline Options is not discussed because t here is already a mandatory program required by Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act in New Jersey. 2) Cement Plants are not discussed because there are no cement plants in New Jersey. 3) Diesel Chip Reflash is not discussed because the OTC states,

includ ing New Jersey, are considering possible actions to increase the number of chip reflash installations of

HDDVs in the Northeast.

## 54 Area Adhesives, Sealants, Adhesive Primers, and Sealant Primers (Industrial)

Area Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving

Area Consumer Products

Area Portable Fuel Containers

Point Asphalt Production Plants

Point ICI Boilers 100 MMBtu/hour or greater

Area and Point ICI Boilers <100 MMBtu/hour

Point Glass Furnaces

Point Cement Plants

Onroad Mobile Diesel Truck Chip Reflash

Onroad Mobile Regional Fuel based on Reformulated Gasoline Options

The shaded categories in Table 4.2 are the OTC measures that have a PM 2.5 

## precursor reduction benefit. NESCAUM developed a model rule for diesel chip reflash for state use, which was included in the OTC’s final Technical Support Document. New Jersey is still evaluating this

program an d seeks comments on how to best achieve the Federal emission limits. For three of the OTC measures (adhesives and sealant, consumer products and portable fuel containers), the OTC drafted model rules which NJDEP is using to achieve VOC emission benefits. For the remaining measures shown in Table 4.2, the OTC developed emission limits and rule specification guidance. The OTC member states signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Appendix A1) that addresses emissions associated with high electrical dema nd days (HEDD) to compliment already existing and future cap

- and

- trade programs with respect to electrical generation. This regional HEDD program will address the peak load emissions from the electrical generation sector on a daily basis.

New Jersey an d other OTC member jurisdictions have resolved to pursue necessary and appropriate rulemakings to implement the emission reduction percentages, emission rates, or technologies for the categories listed in Table 4.2 that are consistent with guidelines found in

OTC Resolution 06

- 02 adopted on June 7, 2006, and amended on November 15, 2006, found in Appendix A2, as well as the High Electrical Demand Days MOU found in Appendix A1. The NJDEP expects to implement most measures that are not already adopted starti ng May 1, 2009 or later. A brief summary of all the OTC

- identified control measures that have a PM 2.5 

## emission reduction benefit is included in the following subsection. For more information about the OTC control measure identification process, or the co ntrol measures identified for implementation through this process, please see Appendix A3.

OTC Identified Beyond on the Way (BOTW) Measures:

Asphalt Production : The NJDEP proposed amendments to its rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.9 in order

to lower NO

x 

## emissi ons from asphalt production facilities. The proposed amendments, based on an OTC model rule, would pursue control measures to achieve at least a 35 percent reduction of

NO

x 

## emissions from asphalt production plants from current levels, with the inclusion o f emission

## 55 limits based on type of fuel combusted and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) requirements. The OTC guidance is based on emission rates and percent reductions typically achieved from the installation of low NO

x 

## burners (LNB) and flue gas recirculation (FGR) to reduce NO

x 

## emissions from asphalt plants. A low NO

x 

## burner reduces NO

x 

## by staged combustion. In flue gas recirculation, the flue gas is used to assist in cooling the combustion temperature, which in turn reduces the NO

x 

## ge nerated. The implementation of Best Management Practices would allow for substantial reductions in fuel consumption and corresponding reductions in the products of combustion, including NO

x 

## . Best Management Practices include

annual combustor tune

- ups, ef fective stockpile management to reduce aggregate moisture content, lowering mix temperature, and other maintenance and operational best practices. For more details on this future rulemaking, see Appendix A3.

Glass Manufacturing : New Jersey proposed amen dments to its current glass manufacturing rules

at N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.10. The proposed amendments, based on OTC guidance, would revise the

NO

x 

## emission rates to reduce emissions consistent with the installation of oxy

- fuel firing, or equivalent measures, at the time of the next furnace re

- build. Although several alternative NO

x 

## control technologies exist, including combustion modifications (low NO

x 

## burners, oxy

- fuel firing, oxygen

- enriched air staging), process modifications (fuel switching, batch preheat, electric boost), and post combustion modifications (fuel reburn, SNCR, SCR), oxyfiring is considered the most effective because it not only reduces NO

x 

## emissions by as much as 85 percent, but also reduces energy consumption, increases production rates by 1 0

- 15 percent, and improves glass quality by reducing defects. In addition, oxyfiring is demonstrated technology for the glass industry. Of New Jersey’s 25 glass manufacturing furnaces, five are already equipped with oxy

- fuel firing and nine are electric. For more details on this future rulemaking, see Appendix A3.

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boiler Rule 2009 : 39 

## ICI boilers combust fuel to produce heat and process steam for a variety of applications, including chemical, metals, paper, petrol eum, and food production industries, and for space heating in office buildings, hotels, apartment buildings, hospitals, and universities. Industrial boilers are generally smaller than boilers in the electric power industry, and typically have heat inputs in the 10

- 250 MMBtu/hr range; however, industrial boilers can be as large as 1,000 MMBtu/hr or smaller than 1 MMBtu/hr. Most commercial and institutional boilers have a heat input less than 100 MMBtu/hr. In New Jersey, 70 percent of the population is sma ller than 50 MMBtu/hr.

Currently, New Jersey ICI boilers are regulated according to size, fuel and boiler type. New Jersey’s existing NO

x 

## limits generally apply only to ICI boilers at least 50 MMBtu/hr located at major sources (i.e., point sources). ICI boilers at minor sources (i.e., area sources) are not subject to the maximum allowable emission rates, but are required to adjust the combustion process annually in boilers as small as 5 MMBtu/hr, effective as of 2010.

New Jersey proposed amendments to its current ICI boiler rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.7. The proposed amendments would revise the NO

x 

## emission limits for both point and area source ICI boilers. Under the proposed amendments, owners and operators of any ICI boilers as small as 25

39 

### Some categories have 2009 compliance dates; remainder have 2012 compliance dates.

## 56 MMBtu/hr would be required to achieve emission limits specified in the rules. For more details on this future rulemaking, see Appendix A3

.

Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA)

The MARAMA states concentrated their efforts on identifying and analyzing emissions from all petroleum refinery processes to help states with refineries develop their SIPs for ozone, fine particles, and regional haze. The MARAMA Refinery Technical Oversight Committee (TOC), assisted by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., e valuated emissions and existing requirements for certain sources found at fourteen (14) petroleum refineries in the MARAMA area. Based on that preliminary review, the TOC selected catalytic and thermal cracking units, boilers and process heaters, flares, equipment leaks, wastewater treatment, storage tanks, and sulfur recovery plants

for further consideration.

MARAMA evaluated emissions, existing requirements, including recent Consent Decrees from 10 of the 14 identified refineries, available control tech nology options, and typical installation costs for each category. As a result of this study, MARAMA, assisted by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., developed three Model Rules for fluid catalytic cracking units, flares and enhanced monitoring of equipment lea ks at petroleum refineries. As part of its 8

- hour ozone RACT committal SIP, the State of New Jersey proposed new rules based in part on MARAMA’s

model rules. 40 

## New Jersey expects that the NO

x 

## , SO 2 

## , PM, and VOC reductions from these

measures will also resu lt in PM 2.5 

## reduction benefits.

A brief summary of all the MARAMA

- identified control measures is included in the following subsections. For more information about the MARAMA control measure identification process,

or the control measures identified for implementation through this process, please see Appendix

A4.

MARAMA

- Identified Beyond on the Way (BOTW) Measures :

Refineries

- Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCUs) : Catalytic cracking units convert middle distillate, gas oil and residuum into primarily gasoline, jet and diesel fuels by using a series of processing steps that literally “crack” large, heavy molecules into smaller, lighter ones. Heat and catalyst are used to convert the heavier oils to lighter products. With fluid catalytic cracking, a fluidized catalyst is used in the cracking process. Fluid catalytic cracking unit systems are the most widely used cracking process in the MARAMA region and are the largest air contaminant emission sources at the refinery. New Jersey has four gasoline

- pr oducing refineries with fluid catalytic cracking units. These refineries are major facilities with Title V Operating Permits, and all emit large quantities of criteria pollutants (SO 2 

## , NO

x 

## , VOCs, carbon monoxide, and coarse particulate matter (PM 10 

## )), as well as HAPs. New Jersey currently regulates NO

x 

## emissions from fluid catalytic cracking units at N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.13.

MARAMA’s model rule for FCCUs, includes emissions limits for particulate matter, SO 2 

## , NO

x 

## , and carbon monoxide. The MARAMA Technical Oversight Committee chose to recommend the

40 

### The MARAMA model rules are posted at http ://www.marama.org for public review.

## 57 most stringent limits in recent Consent Decrees or rules in other jurisdictions. Feasible control technologies are summarized in Table 2

- 6 of their Final Report.

Refineries

– Flares : Petroleum refinery flares are intended to be last

- resort control devices used to safely dispose of flammable waste gases from emergency process upsets, as well as during

start

- up, shutdown and turnaround operations. The combustion of these gases can emit large quantities of NO

x 

## , SO 2 

## , and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere and are believed to be underestimated. New Jersey currently regulates VOC emissions from refinery flares at N.J.A.C.

7:27

- 16.13.

MARAMA’s model rule for petroleum refinery flares includes the control measures designed to

reduce NO

x 

## , SO 2 

## , VOC, and carbon monoxide emissions. Specifically, the model rule includes requirements for the owner/operators of refinery flares to operate and maintain a flare gas recovery system and to eliminate the flaring of routinely ge nerated refinery fuel gases. Other items included in MARAMA’s flare model rule include operational requirements, monitoring system requirements, and guidelines for calculating flare emissions. Control technology options

for flares are summarized in Table 4

- 5 of the Final Report.

Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU)

The MANE

- VU was tasked with identifying reasonable control measures that would reduce

emissions from within the MANE

- VU region contributing to visibility impairment at Class I

a reas by 2018 or earlier. To accomplish this task, beginning in 2005, the MANE

- VU reviewed a wide range of potential control measures to reduce emissions from sources contributing to visibility impairment in affected Class I areas, including a “master list ” of some 900 potential control measures, originally developed for 8

- hour ozone initiative by the OTC. From this extensive list, the MANE

- VU developed an interim list of Regional Haze control measures, which for regional haze included: beyond

- CAIR sulfate reductions from EGUs, low

- sulfur heating oil (residential and commercial), ICI boilers (both coal and oil

- fired), lime and cement kilns, residential wood combustion, and outdoor burning (including outdoor wood boilers).

The next step in the regional haze control measure selection process was to further refine the interim list. The beyond

- CAIR EGU strategy continued to stay on the list since EGU sulfate emissions have, by far, the largest impact on visibility in the MANE

- VU Class I areas. Likewise, a lo w

- sulfur oil strategy, combining low

- sulfur heating oil (residential and commercial) and the oil

- fired ICI boiler sector control measures for #2, #4, and #6 residual oils,

remained on the list after a NESCAUM

- initiated conference with refiners and fuel

- oil suppliers concluded that such a strategy could realistically be implemented. During MANE

- VU’s internal consultation meeting in March 2007, member states reviewed the updated interim list of control measures to make further refinements. At that time, sta tes determined, for example, that there may be too few coal

- fired ICI boilers in the MANE

- VU states for that to be considered as a “regional” strategy, but that could be a sector pursued by individual states. They also determined

that lime and cement kiln s, of which there are few in the MANE

- VU region, would likely be handled via state BART determination processes. Residential wood burning and outdoor wood boilers remain on the list for those states where localized visibility impacts may be of concern.

## 58 The Commissioners of the environmental agencies of the northeastern States with Class I areas met on June 7, 2007 and agreed on a Statement of Principles to guide the direction of the future consultation process for Regional Haze Planning that occurred du ring the summer of 2007. This Statement of Principles was designed to guide the consultation process, set forth the importance of Regional Haze long

- range planning for all states, and highlighted the critical role that air pollutant transport plays in reg ional haze and interstate air pollution. The principles that New Jersey and the other MANE

- VU States laid out in this document are included in Appendix A5.

The Commissioners of the MANE

- VU States also agree upon certain long

- range goals for the

control o f specific source categories within MANE

- VU and agreed on certain specific targets to

“ask” of other States outside of the MANE

- VU planning region and to “ask” of the USEPA. These planning agreements are included in Appendix A6, and summarized in Table 4. 3. New Jersey included these targets in its Regional Haze air quality planning document. 41



## Table 4.3 : Summary of MANE

- VU Planning Target s

Controls Inside of the MANE

- VU Region Controls Outside of MANE

- VU Region National Controls (to “ask” of the USEPA) Timely implementation of BART requirements Timely implementation of BART requirements The MANE

- VU states and tribes request that the USEPA work with the eastern Regional Planning Organizations to develop a proposal for tightening the CAIR program to

achiev e an additional reduction in

SO 2 

### by no later than 2018 A 90% or greater reduction in SO 2 

### emissions from EGUs identified by

MANE

- VU A 90% or greater reduction in SO 2 

### emissions from EGUs identified by

MANE

- VU Ultra Low sulfur fuel strategy in the

inner zo ne states Application of reasonable controls

on non

- EGU sources Low sulfur fuel strategy in the outer

zone states

Continued evaluation of other control measures, including energy efficiency, alternative clean fuels,

and other measures to reduce SO 2



### a nd NO

x 

### emissions from all coal burning facilities by 2018, and new source performance standards for

wood combustion Continued evaluation of other control measures, including energy efficiency, alternative clean fuels,

and other measures to reduce SO 2 

### and N O

x 

### emissions from all coal burning facilities by 2018, and new source performance standards for

wood combustion



## Although emission reduction benefits from the MANE

- VU efforts that are targeting PM 2.5 

## precursors (SO 2 

## and NO

x 

## ) will occur after the 1997 PM 2.5 

## NAAQS attainment date (April 5, 2010), the reductions from the measures listed in Table 4.3 will help the State attain the new

2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 

## standard, as well as all the other PM 2.5 

## - related air quality goals discussed in Chapter 1.

State Specific Efforts

In addition to New Jersey’s participation in the regional control measure identification efforts, the State implemented its own outreach initiative, entitled “Reducing Air Pollution Together.”

41 

### New Jersey proposed its Regional Haze SIP September 15, 2008.

## 59 “Reducing Air Pollution Together” was designed to ga ther control measure ideas and suggestions from the New Jersey public, regulated communities, and other interested parties. In addition, the NJDEP, as required by the Clean Air Act, completed its own internal RACT and Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) analyses, to identify viable controls for significant sources within the State. All of these efforts, as well as any control measures identified from them, are discussed in greater detail below.

New Jersey Workgroup Efforts

The NJDEP began a collaborative effort to discuss the air quality challenges facing New Jersey by hosting a public workshop on June 29, 2005. This workshop served to initiate a dialogue between the NJDEP and interested and affected parties about reducing emissions in order to improve air quality in New Jersey. Over 200 persons representing various industries, environmental and civic groups attended. As a result of the “Reducing Air Pollution Together” workshop, the following six air quality workgroups were formed and coll aborated over several months to develop recommendations on how to reduce air emissions from their specific source categories:

 Diesel Initiatives

 Gasoline Cars and Trucks

 Homes and Restaurants

 Non

- Automobile Gasoline Engines

 Stationary Combustion Source s

 Volatile Organic Compounds from Industrial Processes and Consumer

Products

The workgroups identified potential control measures to reduce NO

x 

## , VOC, PM 2.5 

## , and SO 2 

## emissions for possible inclusion in the State’s upcoming SIP revisions. Through the coop erative efforts of the NJDEP, federal agencies, industry, consultants, environmental groups, and other members of the regulated community, the workgroups evaluated available emission inventories, technical information and field data to develop lists of pot ential air emission control strategies related to their topic area. The criteria used by the workgroups to prioritize control measures included technical feasibility, economic feasibility, environmental benefits, and implementation feasibility. The air q uality workgroups compiled their recommendations into reports that were submitted to the NJDEP for further consideration on October 31, 2005. The workgroups presented a summary of their recommendations to the NJDEP’s Air Quality Management Team

on Novembe r 14, 2005. This event was another opportunity for the NJDEP staff and workgroup members to discuss the workgroup recommendations.

The NJDEP’s workgroup leaders and facilitators met with the NJDEP’s Air Quality Management

team to review the over 200 work group recommendations and identify those control strategies with significant potential emissions reductions. After culling that list down to 60 potential

## 60 control measures, the NJDEP then generated white papers 42 

## for each measure. These white

papers were p osted on the NJDEP’s website for public review and comment. The NJDEP made revisions to individual white paper where appropriate, based on comment and/or additional information. In addition, the NJDEP invited the public, representatives from local busine sses, industry and environmental groups, and others to a follow

- up workshop to discuss potential emission reduction strategies on May 17, 2006. The purpose of that workshop was for the NJDEP to provide an update on efforts during the past year to address air quality challenges facing New Jersey and to share preliminary regulatory and nonregulatory plans to reduce air emissions. Following the May 17, 2006 workshop, the public was asked to provide feedback on the workshop, and on the 60 white papers drafted by the NJDEP and discussed at the workshop. 43



## Many of the white paper measures are the same as those identified through the OTC and MARAMA efforts, and the State’s own RACT and RACM analyses for both ozone and PM 2.5



## . The PM 2.5 

## RACT and RACM analyses are discussed in more detail in Sections 4.3.1.5.4 and 4.3.1.5.5, respectively.

4.01.1.1.1 New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) Energy Master Plan Efforts

On October 3, 2006, Governor Jon S. Corzine announced the commencement of an interagency planning proces s that will culminate in an energy master plan, a long

- term energy vision for the state that plans for the state’s energy needs through 2020. 44



## The Energy Master Plan (EMP) will address three areas: security, safety, and reliability of prices of energy s upply and services; economic impact of energy production, transportation, and end use; and environmental impact associated with the production of energy. 45 

## The main goal of the

EMP is to reduce projected energy use by 20 percent by 2020 and meet 20 percent of the State’s electricity needs with Class 1 renewable energy sources by 2020. 46 

## Other goals of

the EMP are described below:

Goal 1: Secure, Safe, and Reasonably Priced Energy Supplies and Services

– To provide safe, secure, reasonably priced energy sup plies and services to New Jersey’s commercial, industrial, transportation, and residential customers, while reducing dependence on traditional fossil fuels and fossil fuel generation, decreasing electric and natural gas transmission congestion, utilizing e fficiency and renewable resources to supplement the

42 

### A complete list of white papers, with links to the actual papers, can be found at www.nj.gov/dep/airworkgroups/docs/wp_summary_table_web.xls.

43 

### Comment s received on the white papers are posted at www.nj.gov/dep/airworkgroups/comments.html.

44 

### State of New Jersey Office of the Governor. Governor Corzine Announces Initial Phase of Energy Master Plan

. Available at http://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/appro ved/20061003.html. October 3, 2006.

45 

### State of New Jersey Office of the Governor. Governor Corzine Announces Initial Phase of Energy Master Plan

. Available at http://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/approved/20061003.html. October 3, 2006.

46 

### State of New Jersey Energy Master Plan. Energy Master Plan Goals . Available at: http://www.nj.gov/emp/about/goals.html.

## 61 State’s energy resources, proactively planning for in

- state electricity generation retirements, and reducing the demand for energy. 47



## Goal 2: Economic Growth and Development

– To encourage and maintain ec onomic growth prospects for the State by recognizing and fostering the multiple functions of energy in the economy. 48



## Goal 3: Environmental Protection and Impact

– To promote the achievement of Federal and State environmental requirements and objectives in an effective and low

- cost manner and, where possible, provide market

- based incentives to achieve those goals. 49


## Public participation began October 2006, with a series of stakeholder meetings held throughout the State; that continued with the formation of Ex ternal Working Groups for energy categories. More than 500 people have attended EMP meetings, offered input and ideas, and joined the listserv. The draft EMP was released in April of 2008 with public hearings held in July of 2008.

The final EMP was rele ased on October 22, 2008.

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

New Jersey’s PM 2.5 

## reasonably available control technology (RACT) analysis was conducted

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1) (Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act), which requires states with nonattainment areas to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) implementing all reasonably available control measures (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a mini mum, of reasonably available control technology) as expeditiously as practicable to attain the NAAQS.

New Jersey’s RACT analysis demonstrates that reductions of direct PM 2.5 

## emissions and its precursors, SO 2 

## and NO

x 

## , from major stationary source categorie s are reasonable. New Jersey’s full RACT analysis is included in Appendix A7.

Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis

A Reasonably Available Control Measure, or RACM, is defined by the USEPA as any potential control measure for application to point, 50 

## area, onroad, and nonroad emission source categories that meets the following criteria:

• The control measure is technologically feasible

• The control measure is economically feasible

• The control measure does not cause “substantial widespread and long

- term adverse impacts”

47 

### Ibid.

48 

### Ibid.

49 

### Ibid.

50 

### RACM applies only to those point sources not already addressed as part of the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RA CT) analysis. The USEPA’s PM 2.5 

### Implementation Rule (72 Fed. Reg. 20585

- 667 (April 25, 2007)) considers RACT a part of RACM, and not an independent requirement, which is how RACT is considered in the Ozone Implementation Rule (70 Fed. Reg. 71611

- 71705). However, New Jersey determined to conduct these two analyses separately, consistent with how it addressed its RACT and RACM requirements for 8

- hour ozone. New Jersey’s separate RACT analysis for PM 2.5 

### is contained in Appendix A7.

## 62 • The control measure is not “absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable”

• The control measure can advance the attainment date by at least one year

New Jersey’s 2007 PM 2.5 

## RACM analysis was conducted to fulfill the requirements of Se ction (c)(1) of the Clean Air Act. This analysis addressed the following PM 2.5 

## precursors: direct

PM 2.5 

## , SO 2 

## , and NO

x 

## . VOC and NH 3 

## were not addressed, consistent with USEPA guidance.

A total of 628 potential non

- transportation control measures 51 

## were com piled and reviewed to determine whether or not any of these measures could be considered a RACM that would

advance the attainment date for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS by at least one year. In order to advance the attainment date by one year, potential RAC M measures would have to be implemented by 2008. After pre

- screening, 61 potential non

- transportation control measures (TCMs) were further evaluated using the RACM criteria. Seventeen (17) non

- TCMs passed all RACM criteria, but would not be implemented b y 2008.

The NJDOT conducted a separate PM 2.5 

## RACM analysis for TCMs. Twenty

- six TCMs were identified and evaluated based on the RACM criteria. One TCM passed all RACM criteria, but would not be implemented by 2008.

It was determined that none of these 18 potential measures could be implemented by 2008. The RACM analysis did identify several promising measures that New Jersey will consider implementing at a later date, and confirmed other measures that New Jersey is already addressing.

New Jersey’s f ull RACM analysis is included in Appendix A8.

Additional Measures

There are additional State measures that, while not identified specifically in any of the regional or state control measure initiatives, have been, or will be, implemented in time to prov ide quantitative PM 2.5 

## emission reductions prior to and during 2009. The remainder of this section

discusses these measures:

Diesel Idling Rule Changes : Since diesel engines are significant contributors of ozone and fine particulate precursors in the Sta te of New Jersey, any efforts to control and reduce those emissions contribute to the State’s attainment of the ozone and fine particulate matter NAAQS.

O n September 18, 2006, the NJDEP proposed amendments to the existing diesel idling rules. 52



## The rules became effective July 25, 2007. These rules address the allowable idling duration for

diesel

- powered motor vehicles, and exemptions to that maximum idling limit. The changes reduce the allowable exemptions to a three

- minute diesel idling standard. There were

exe mptions to the idling limit which allowed qualified vehicles to idle for an unlimited length of

51 

### Trans portation Control Measures, or TCMs, are transportation strategies specific to onroad mobile sources, which reduce emissions by reducing the number and/or length of vehicle trips and/or improve traffic flow.

52 

### Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution fro m Diesel

- Powered Motor Vehicles Air Administrative Procedures and Penalties Proposed Amendments: N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 14.1, 14.3, 7:27A

- 3.10(m)14. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. September 18, 2006.

## 63 time under certain conditions. The revisions to the rule modify these exemptions to further limit idling in cold weather; limit the idling time for ve hicles that transport people; clarify the idling rules regarding trucks waiting in line; clarify the type of vehicle which would be considered an “emergency motor vehicle,” and the times which would be considered “an emergency situation;”

eliminate the exe mption for idling while a vehicle is in for repairs that do not require the engine to be engaged to complete; eliminate the exemption for idling while attaching or detaching a trailer, should it take longer than the allowed three consecutive minutes; and p hase out the exemption for sleeper berths.

Diesel Smoke (I/M Cutpoint) Rule Changes : Like the diesel idling efforts, the NJDEP requirements for the inspection and maintenance (I/M) of diesel vehicles are designed to reduce the emissions from diesel engi nes, which are significant contributors to ozone, PM 2.5 

## and its precursors. The NJDEP is currently working to propose amendments to its existing diesel I/M rules to reduce the allowable smoke from heavy

- duty diesel vehicles. Smoke opacity, which is

used as a surrogate for particulate matter, is the degree to which a plume of smoke will obstruct transmission of visible light. Smoke opacity is used as an indicator for mal

- maintenance.

Currently available technology allows diesel engines to emit smoke at rates much lower than the existing cutpoints, when operating in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications. Therefore, it is appropriate to revise the heavy

- duty diesel vehicle inspection program standards to reflect the current diesel engine techn ology and ensure appropriate maintenance is performed. Although newer diesel

- powered vehicles and equipment usually operate more cleanly and may contribute less to air quality problems than their predecessors, diesel

- powered trucks and buses

tend to remai n in service for 20 years or more. Unless the excess emissions due to mal

maintenance or lack of repair are reduced, trucks and buses will continue to emit excess levels of exhaust particles and contribute to air pollution in the State for many years to c ome. Implementing stricter opacity cutpoints for diesel

- powered vehicles will result in appropriate

maintenance and reduce emissions.

Case

- by

- Case NO

x 

## Limit Determinations (FSELs/AELs) : Existing RACT rules set performance standards for many source catego ries. Major NO

x 

## facilities with emission sources having a potential to emit more than 10 tons of NO

x 

## per year where no previous NJDEP RACT limit has been established in the RACT Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 16 and N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19), i.e., sources without performa nce standards, must apply to the NJDEP for a Facility

- Specific Emission Limit (FSEL). When a performance standard exists and the source determines it is not reasonable, they apply to the NJDEP for an Alternative Emission Limit (AEL). FSELs and AELs are d etermined

on a case

- by

- case basis.

Currently, New Jersey has about 40 of these case

- by

- case FSEL/AEL determinations for sources throughout the State. New Jersey’s FSEL and AEL provisions for oxides of nitrogen are found

at N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.13.

As part of its RACT analysis, the NJDEP reviewed all of its existing FSELs and AELs and found that many were approved as long ago as 1997. In many cases, control technologies have advanced sufficiently since that time, warranting the reevaluation of these case

- b y

- case determinations. The NJDEP proposes to require all facilities with existing FSELs or AELs to

## 64 either comply with the existing or revised RACT limits, where applicable, or demonstrate that a new FSEL/AEL is warranted. The NJDEP further proposes that the newly issued AELs will terminate after a certain number of years, requiring periodic re

- evaluations and determinations, in an effort to keep these limits current until compliance with specific rule emission limits are

achieved.

Municipal Waste Combu stors (Incinerators) NO

x 

## Rule : New Jersey has five resource recovery facilities (RRF) located in Essex, Union, Camden, Gloucester, and Warren Counties, respectively. There are 13 municipal waste combustors (MWC) at these five facilities. The NJDEP approv ed facility specific emission limits (FSELs) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.13 for

each of these MWCs to meet the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS, because these facilities qualified as major facilities (i.e., those facilities with the potential to emit more than 25 tons of NO

x 

## per year containing a source operation that has the potential to emit greater than 10 tons per year) and the State did not establish specific RACT source requirements for MWCs. The USEPA has adopted Federal Plans for both large and small MWCs. New Jersey is the delegated state authorized to implement and enforce those plans, in accordance with Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs)

between the State and the USEPA. The Federal standard for emissions of NO

x 

## from MWCs, as

reflected in the Federal rules dated May 10, 2006, and previous Federal plans, is 205 ppm. 53


## Currently, all New Jersey MWCs are in compliance with the Federal standard.

As part of its ozone RACT analysis, the NJDEP reviewed the Municipal Waste Combustor

FSELs and determined that, when equipp ed with selective non

- catalytic reduction (SNCR), NO

x 

## controls are capable of more NO

x 

## reductions than are currently being achieved by some of the municipal solid waste facilities. The ozone RACT rulemaking proposal will eliminate the

various MWC FSELs an d set a more stringent source category NO

x 

## emission limit, which will

result in further NO

x 

## emission reductions from this source category.

Refineries

- Process Heaters and Boilers : Process heaters and boilers operating at petroleum refineries emit large a mounts of NO

x 

## , carbon monoxide, SO 2 

## , and PM emissions. Boilers are designed to generate steam for use throughout the refinery, while process heaters burn fuels to transfer heat directly to process materials. Boilers and process heaters are similar in tha t they are indirect combustion devices that burn fuels such as natural gas, fuel oil, and refinery fuel gas. New Jersey currently regulates NO

x 

## emissions from indirect heat exchangers at N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.7.

Available control technologies for controllin g NO

x 

## emissions from these units include Ultra Low

NO

x 

## Burners (LNB) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). These control technologies have been successfully applied to both types of equipment achieving emission reductions up to 90 percent. Recent enfo rcement settlements required some refineries to reduce NO

x 

## emissions to

0.04 lbs NO

x 

## /MMBtu.

New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle Program : The NJDEP’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program (or Clean Car Program) rule was adopted on November 28, 2005, with an opera tive date of January 27, 2006. 54 

## The rule requires all new vehicles delivered for sale in New Jersey to be

53 

### 70 Fed. Reg. 75348

- 69 (May 10, 2006).

54 

### 38 N.J.R. 497(b) (January 17, 2006).

## 65 California certified for emissions beginning January 1, 2009. This rule also establishes a zero emission vehicle (ZEV) sales requirement for New Jer sey and requires that each auto manufacturer’s sales fleet in New Jersey meet a declining fleet average non

- methane organic gas (NMOG) emission standard.

The rule is designed, in part, to encourage auto manufacturers to offer the ultra

- low emitting

Califo rnia certified models in New Jersey prior to the 2009 mandatory compliance start date. Auto manufacturers delivering such vehicles to New Jersey can earn ZEV credits that can be used by manufacturers to help transition into the mandatory requirements in 2 009 and beyond. Currently, 36 models are certified to the Partial ZEV (PZEV) or Advanced Tech PZEV (ATPZEV) standard, which will generate such credits if sold in New Jersey. There are 23,493 vehicles that have either received or are currently receiving Z EV credits in New Jersey.

Distillate and Residual Fuel Strategies : Lowering the sulfur content in fuel oil is a part of the long

- term strategy established by the MANE

- VU states to reduce and prevent regional haze.

The MANE

- VU states in the inner zone (Ne w Jersey, New York, Delaware and Pennsylvania) plan to reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 0.05 percent sulfur by weight (500 ppm) by 2012, the sulfur content of No. 4 residual oil to 0.3 percent sulfur by weight by 2012, the sulfur

content of N o. 6 residual oil to 0.3 to 0.5 percent sulfur by weight by 2012, and to further reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2016. The MANE

- VU states in the outer zone plan to reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 0.05 percent sulfur by weight by than 2014, the sulfur content of No. 4 residual oil to 0.25 to 0.5 percent sulfur by weight by 2018, the sulfur content of No. 6 residual oil to no greater than 0.5 percent sulfur by weight by 2018, and to

further reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2018 (depending on supply availability).

The NJDEP is planning to propose to amend N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 9, Sulfur in Fuels, specifically section 9.2, which specifies sulfur content standards and maximum allowable sulfur dioxide

emiss ions. The potential amendments will affect those who store, offer for sale, sell, deliver or exchange fuel for use in New Jersey, as well as the users of these fuels. The anticipated

amendments will reduce the maximum allowable sulfur content in fuel and the maximum

allowable SO 2 

## emissions from fuel combustion in order to reduce the emissions of SO 2 

## and other pollutants from the combustion of fuel in New Jersey.

Currently, maximum allowable sulfur levels in No. 2 and lighter fuel oil in New Jersey are either 2,000 parts per million (ppm) or 3,000 ppm. Maximum allowable sulfur levels in No. 4 fuel ranges from 3,000 ppm (0.3 percent) to 20,000 ppm (2.0 percent). Maximum allowable sulfur levels in No. 5 and No. 6 fuels also range from 3,000 to 20,000 ppm . The NJDEP is evaluating a proposal to reduce the maximum allowable sulfur content of No. 2 and lighter fuel oil to 500 ppm (0.05 percent), then 15 ppm (0.0015 percent) statewide; reduce the maximum allowable sulfur content of No. 4 fuel oil to 3,000 ppm (0.3 percent) statewide; and reduce the maximum allowable sulfur content of No. 5, No. 6 and heavier fuel oils to 5,000 ppm (0.5 percent) in Zones 1, 2, 3 and 5 (the standard will remain 3,000 ppm (0.3 percent) in Zones 4 and 6).

Fleet Turnover : The turn over of the onroad fleet of cars and trucks will result in additional NO

x 

## and PM emission benefits in 2009 and beyond because the new vehicles have significantly lower

## 66 emission standards than the vehicles they are replacing. The new vehicle emission stand ards are lower primarily because of a number of Federal rules such as the Tier 2 standards for automobiles and light trucks and the 2007 Heavy Duty Diesel standards for large diesel highway trucks. A number of post

- 2002 New Jersey rules also contribute to the fleet turnover emission benefits, such as the New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (NJLEV) new vehicle program.

Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Mercer and Hudson) : On November 30, 2006, the USEPA, U.S. Department of Justice, and the State of New Jersey reached a settlement with PSE&G related to failure to comply with a 2002 consent decree requiring installation of pollution controls at its coal

- fired power plants in Jersey City (Hudson) and Hamilton (Mercer), New Jersey. 55

, 56 

## The settlement require d additional air pollution controls, lower sulfur coal, lower emissions, and environmental projects. At the Hudson plant, PSE&G was required to take interim steps to reduce emissions of NO

x 

## , SO 2 

## , and PM until the required pollution control equipment was i nstalled as required by the original consent decree or the unit was shut down. These interim measures included year

- round operation of the existing NO

x 

## control equipment utilizing selective non

- catalytic reduction (SNCR) to reduce NO

x 

## , use of ultra

- low su lfur coal, compliance with interim annual emission caps for NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## , and operation of an electrostatic precipitator and a fly ash conditioning system to control PM. These additional emission control measures will improve air quality in the region. Th is agreement also included new fabric filters being installed on the PSE&G Mercer generating plant by December 31, 2008. For the period of the consent decree, PSE&G will significantly reduce its emissions of NO

x 

## , SO 2 

## , and PM in order

to achieve the same r eductions required under the 2002 Consent Decree.

Federal

The Federal government plans to implement several measures that will provide quantitative emission reductions prior to the summer of 2009. The remainder of this section discusses these

measures

.

Small Offroad Engine Rule : On May 18, 2007, the USEPA proposed new rules that would set stricter standards for most lawn and garden equipment and small recreational watercraft. 57

, 58


## Specifically, the proposal would establish new exhaust emission standa rds that manufacturers are expected to meet using catalytic converters in many types of small watercraft, lawn, and garden equipment. This proposed rule also includes fuel evaporative standards for all the types of

55 

### USEPA. United States and New Jersey Announce Clean Air Act Settlement with PSE&G Fossil LLC for Violations of 2002 Consent Decree; Utility Required to Pay Significantly Increased Penalties and Reduce

Emissions. Acce ssed from: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1ef7cd36224b565785257359003f533f/c59ece80a8a072d1852572360065c 298!OpenDocument. November 30, 2006.

56 

### State of New Jersey v. PSEG Fossil LLC , Amendment to Consent Decree, Newark Division, New Jersey, U.S. District Court (November 30, 2006). Accessible at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/decrees/amended/psegfossil

- amended

- cd.pdf.

57 

### 72 Fed. Reg. 28098

- 146 (May 18, 2007).

58 

### For more information about the proposal, visit USEPA’s websites at Lawn and G arden http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip

- ld.htm for lawn and garden equipment and http://www.epa.gov/otaq/marinesi.htm for gasoline boats and personal watercraft.

## 67 equipment and watercraft covered in the rulemaking. The new standards would apply as early as 2011 for most lawn and garden equipment (under 25 horsepower) and 2009 for watercraft.

Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression

- Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder : On March 14, 2008, the USEPA adopted more stringent exhaust emission standards for locomotives and marine diesel engines. 59 

## The standards include: tightening emission standards for existing locomotives when they are remanufactured; setting near

- term engine

- out
emission stan dards (Tier 3 standards) for newly

- built locomotives and marine diesel engines; and setting longer

- term standards (Tier 4 standards) for newly

- built locomotives and marine diesel engines that reflect the application of high

- efficiency aftertreatment techno logy. The USEPA is also proposing provisions to eliminate emissions from unnecessary locomotive idling.

The standards for remanufactured locomotives will take effect as soon as certified remanufacture systems are available (as early as 2008). Tier 3 s tandards for newly

- built locomotive and marine engines would phase in starting in 2009. Tier 4 standards for newly

- built locomotives and marine diesel engines would phase in beginning in 2014 for marine diesel engines and 2015 for

locomotives.

Energy Con servation Standards for New Federal Commercial and Multi

- Family High

- Rise Residential Buildings and New Federal Low

- Rise Residential Buildings : The United States Department of Energy (USDOE) has developed standards for all new Federal commercial and high

- r ise multi

- family residential (over three stories in height above ground) buildings and all

new low

- rise residential buildings pursuant to the requirements of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA). The effective date of the rule is January 22, 2008. The rule establishes an energy efficiency baseline for new Federal commercial and multi

- family high rise residential buildings based on referencing ASHRAE 60 

## Standard 90.1

- 2004 and the 2004 IECC. 61 

## The standards establish requirements for the structur e and major systems of a building, and are mandatory for new Federal buildings. The rule establishes a requirement for new Federal buildings to achieve a level of energy efficiency 30 percent greater than that of the

ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 62 

## or the 2004 IECC le vels when life

- cycle cost

- effective. This rule is expected to reduce NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emissions.

Additional Actions

The State is also taking the following additional actions to reduce PM 2.5 

## emissions.

High Electrical Demand Days (HEDD) Program : In March 200 7, following a year long process, six of the OTC states committed to pursue reductions in NO

x 

## emissions from electrical generating units that primarily operate on high electrical demand days (HEDD) starting with the

59 

### 73 Fed. Reg. 25097 (May 6, 2008).

60 

### The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

- Con ditioning Engineers

61 

### International Energy Conservation Code

62 

### American National Standards Institute/ The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

- Conditioning Engineers/ The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

## 68 2009 ozone season. 63 

## On these high elect ric demand days, increased power generation is needed, usually on short notice. In Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania, boilers and turbines that primarily run to follow electrical load needs supply HEDD power generation. In New Jersey and N ew York, combustion turbines primarily supply HEDD power generation. The majority of the HEDD units in the six states are not controlled and produce significant NO

x 

## emissions on HEDDs. For example, on a typical summer day (June 4, 2005), NO

x 

## emissions fo r the six states for all Electric Generating Units (EGUs) were 551 tons per day (tpd). On a HEDD (July 26, 2005), NO

x 

## emissions were 1,349 tpd. Most of this increase in emissions is due to power production from uncontrolled HEDD units.

As part of the HE DD initiative, New Jersey plans to reduce NO

x 

## emissions by 19.8 tpd on the nominal high electrical demand days. Specifically, power generators in New Jersey will be responsible for securing these reductions and will be required to submit a plan on how the y will

reduce NO

x 

## . The generators will have flexibility in securing the 2009 reductions. New Jersey also plans to require that all HEDD units meet performance standards that reflect modern low

NO

x 

## technology by May 1, 2015.

Ports : The Port of New York/N ew Jersey is the largest port complex on the East Coast of North

America. It is located at the hub of the most concentrated and affluent consumer market in the world, with immediate access to the most extensive interstate highway and rail networks in the region. The Port Authority directly oversees the operation of seven privately owned cargo

terminals in the New York

- New Jersey region (landlord tenant relationship). Each year, more than 25 million tons of oceanborne general cargo moves through this port , including 4.5 million TEUs (twenty

- foot equivalent container units) of containerized cargo. The Port

Newark/Elizabeth

- Port Authority Marine Terminal complex (NJ), the Port Authority Auto Marine Terminal (NJ), Brooklyn Piers and Red Hook Container Termin al (NY), and Howland Hook Marine Terminal (NY) handle most of the cargo. In addition, there are private operators, such as Global Marine Terminal and a number of marine terminals, operated by private bulk cargo operators. The Passenger Ship Terminal know n as The New York Cruise Terminal is operated by P&O Ports North America for the City of New York.

Containerized cargo volumes in the Port of New York and New Jersey rose nearly 8 percent in 2006, to a new record high. The dollar value of all cargo movin g through the port in 2006 exceeded $149 billion for the first time, up 13 percent from 2005. In the next 10 years, nearly $2 billion in infrastructure upgrades are planned for marine terminal facilities and for off

- port roads and railways to improve the flow of cargo.

To minimize the impact that this tremendous growth has on our environment, the NJDEP Commissioner outlined the following action item in the document entitled “Priorities and Action Plan,” January 2007. This goal is reiterated in the draft document entitled “Environmental

Justice Priorities for the NJDEP

– May 2007.”

63 

### Memorandum of Under standing Among the States of the Ozone Transport Commission Concerning the Incorporation of High Electrical Demand Day Emission Reduction Strategies into Ozone Attainment State Implementation Planning. Ozone Transport Commission, March 2, 2007.

## 69 “Target [NJ]DEP efforts to establish a coordinated effort on protecting the health of urban residents from environmental causes and ensure that [NJ]DEP’s efforts to support

ec onomic growth and redevelopment in urban areas results in improved urban environmental health. Specifically, [NJ]DEP will coordinate its efforts at NJ’s two major ports to deliver tangible environmental improvements.”

The NJDEP is working closely with th e Port Authority of NY/NJ, the USEPA Region 2, the South Jersey Port Corporation, and the Northeast Diesel Collaborative to develop and implement a comprehensive diesel risk reduction strategy for the port areas. Some possibilities include requiring clean er fuel for oceangoing vessels while at dock or near the port; upgrading the cargo handling equipment; reducing idling emissions from ships, trains and trucks doing business at the port; and modernizing the drayage truck fleet that calls on the port.

At t he South Jersey Port Corporation in Camden, New Jersey, several specific projects are underway at the terminals that they own and operate. First, as part of an enforcement settlement, nearly $400,000 was spent on retrofitting both on

- road and off

- road veh icles in the Camden Waterfront South area. Second, Clean Air Communities in partnership with NJDEP, the South Jersey Port Corporation, and others received a $250,000 grant from the USEPA titled “Community Action for a Renewed Environment.” The grant will be used to work with the project partners to: establish a forum for dialogue with local businesses; and undertake community campaigns, such as publishing an environmental justice toolkit for high school students and educating children about environmental health. The NJDEP agreed to supplement the $250,000 grant with $500,000 from an enforcement settlement so that the South Jersey Port Corporation could undertake additional diesel emission reduction projects on the diesel equipment that they operate in Cam den.

Open burning/Outdoor wood burning

– Smoke Management Plans : New Jersey already has a regulation in place to control emissions from open burning at N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 2, Control and Prohibition of Open Burning, 64 

## and is considering changes to agricultural b urning portion of these requirements. This source category is also addressed in the “Smoke Management” section of New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP (including the agricultural and forestry smoke management, prescribed burning, and agricultural management dis cussions in that SIP proposal). 65 

## One particulate control measure has already been implemented, namely to limit air pollution control permits to prevent open burning on days forecast to be of unhealthful air quality. This permit condition requires the per mit holder to delay open burning until forecast meteorological conditions and air quality have improved so that forecasted unhealthful conditions for that day will not be made worse by this activity. Similarly, New Jersey is considering a seasonal home

wo od heating advisory program to further curtail wood smoke emissions, similar to the program adopted in Lane County, Oregon. 66 

## This program would advise homeowners when they could heat their homes with wood, according to the current air quality.

64 

### Availabl e at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqm/Sub%2002%20v1994

- 06

- 20.pdf (Accessed November 19, 2007).

65 

### The first regional haze air quality protection plan for New Jersey will be completed in 2008 (see Chapter 1 for further details).

66 

### LRAPA. Public Education: Ho me Wood Heating Programs. Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA). http://www.lrapa.org/public_education/home_wood_heating_programs/, accessed May 14, 2008.

## 70 Change

- out programs : Control measures might include wood stove and fireplace change

- out programs, and lawn mower replacement programs. Financial incentives would be necessary to ensure a productive program. New Jersey would consider implementing a change

- out progr am in the future if funds become available.

Fugitive dust emissions : New Jersey has a control strategy in place for the control of stormwater runoff from streets under the New Jersey Municipal Stormwater Regulation program 67 

## that also has air quality ben efits by the removal of fugitive dust. The strategy includes both mandated and voluntary street sweeping. Some streets are required to be swept monthly.

New Jersey also has standards that reduce fugitive emissions from various sources such as tillage

a nd construction. These standards have been adopted by the NJDOT and New Jersey Department of Agriculture (NJDOA) under the “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Standards:

Standards for Dust Control.”

This source category has also been identified as a poten tial PM 2.5 

## RACT measure for certain facilities throughout the State. For more information, see the PM 2.5 

## RACT analysis in Appendix

A7.

Energy conservation and “green building” : New Jersey currently provides for rebates and other

financial incentives to i nstall energy

- efficiency measures in a home. The New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (NJDCA) has minimum design standards for some appliances. The New Jersey Clean Energy Program (NJCEP) and the New Jersey Energy Master Plan (NJEMP) encourage ener gy conservation.

Train engines : As of January 1, 2008, New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit) has voluntarily implemented an “Idling Reduction Policy” to shut down their diesel passenger locomotives within one hour of stopping to reduce idling at train yards by 70 percent to 90 percent. NJ Transit has also agreed to move forward with a New Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) proposal to evaluate idling reduction technologies.

Truck Stop Electrification : On October 20, 2004, the first Electrified Tr uck Stop in New Jersey was opened at Paulsboro, New Jersey. The Truck stop has ninety

- eight truck electrification bays equipped with IdleAire Service Modules. These modules mount on the cab's passenger window to provide heat, ventilation, air conditionin g, power for the refrigeration unit and appliances as well as cable TV, telephone and Internet service. New Jersey encourages the use of this technology to reduce PM 2.5 

## emissions from diesel trucks. Discussions are underway for an electrification project at the Vince Lombardi Rest Area in Ridgefield, Bergen County, New Jersey. New Jersey is considering other locations for electrification, as well.

Medium Duty Motor Vehicle Inspection : New Jersey is evaluating an inspection program for medium duty vehic les with a gross weight between 8,501

– 17,999 pounds. The inspection program would be a combination of OBD and Smoke opacity inspections, and would help control particulate emissions.

67 

### 2006 Annual Report summary on New Jersey’s Stormwater Regulation program is available at

ht tp://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/pdf/2006msrpannualreportlong.pdf (Accessed November 19, 2007).

## 71 VOC Measures

The State is implementing several VOC control measu res that were adopted as discussed in the

2007 8

- hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP. 68 

## Although the USEPA does not consider

VOC as a PM 2.5 

## precursor for SIP and conformity purposes, New Jersey anticipates a PM 2.5 

## benefit from the implementation of the se measures. The proposed VOC measures are listed in

Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 : VOC Control Measures

Control Measures Sector

Pre

- 2002 with benefits achieved Post

- 2002

- On the Books

Federal
Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) beyond Stage II Area /Onroad

Post

- 2002

- On the Books

New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort a



## Consumer Products 2005 Area Architectural Coatings 2005 Area

Portable Fuel Containers 2005 Area and Nonroad Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Area

S olvent Cleaning Point and Area

New Jersey Only Measures
Stage I and Stage II (Gasoline Transfer Operations) Area

Federal

USEPA MACT Standards Point

Post

- 2002

- Beyond on the Way

New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort

Cons umer Products 2009 Amendments Area

Portable Fuel Containers 2009 Amendments Area and Nonroad Asphalt Paving Area

68 

### NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: 8

- Hour Ozone Attainment De monstration Proposal. June 15, 2007.

## 72 Control Measures Sector

Adhesives and Sealants Area and Point

Refineries

– Fugitive Equipment Leaks Point

New Jersey Only Measures
VOC Stationary Storage Tan k Measures Point and Area USEPA CTGs (4 categories) Point and Area

Conclusions on Control Measures

The control measures discussed in this section make up the core of the State’s PM 2.5 

## attainment

demonstration and contingency measures. The use of these measures in each of those demonstrations, as well as how the benefits from the implementation of those measures were calculated, is discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively. Many of the benefits were determined

from the USEPA MOBILE6 model and t he USEPA Nonroad model. Most of the control measure benefits (quantitatively) were included in the attainment modeling. Those that were not included in the attainment modeling are listed and discussed in Chapter 5.

There are a host of other measures t hat have been, or will be, implemented in and around New Jersey whose benefits cannot be accurately estimated or quantified. These measures are described in Chapter 5. These measures, while not quantified, are providing a benefit to the air quality in Ne w Jersey, as well as its upwind states, 69 

## and increase the likelihood that the State

will attain the PM 2.5 

## health standard by its attainment date of April 5, 2010.

69 

### Please see Chapter 8 for a discussion of the impact of New Jersey control measures on upwind states.