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:

New Jersey Attainment Demonstration, Reasonably Available Control Measures; Base and 

Projection Year Emission Inventories, and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions for the Attainment and Maintenance of

the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) Standard

PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration

December 2012
2

Table of Contents

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

II. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................ 2

III. DETERMINATIONS OF ATTAINMENT.............................................................................. 2

IV. COMPONENTS OF NEW JERSEY’S ATTAINMENT PLAN.............................................. 2

V. EPA’S REVIEW OF NEW JERSEY’S ATTAINMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL ...................... 2

A. Pollutants Addressed......................................................................................................... 2

B. Emission Inventory Requirements..................................................................................... 2

C. Attainment Demonstration Modeling................................................................................. 2

D.Reasonable Further Progress (RFP).................................................................................... 2

E. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology 

Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 2

F. Contingency Measures........................................................................................................ 2

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets.................................................................................... 2

VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 2
3

I. INTRODUCTION

This document provides a technical review of a revision to the New Jersey State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submitted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) on 

April 1, 2009. This SIP revision addresses the attainment plan of the 1997 annual fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the New Jersey 

portion of the New York-N.New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT, PM2.5 nonattainment area, and 

the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE, PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

The attainment plan includes New Jersey’s attainment demonstration, motor vehicle emission 

budgets (MVEBs) used for transportation conformity purposes, an analysis of reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control technology (RACT), the 

base-year and projection-year modeling emissions inventories, and contingency measures. 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. Designation History 

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

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3

) 

based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and a 24-hour (or daily) standard 

of 65 ug/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA 

established the standards based on significant evidence and numerous health studies 

demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to PM2.5. 

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; 

this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. In 1999, EPA and State 

Air Quality Agencies initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and by 

January 2001, established a complete set of air quality monitors. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 

944), EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on air 

quality monitoring data for calendar years 2001-2003.

On April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19844), EPA promulgated a supplemental rule amending the Agency’s 

initial designations, with the same effective date (April 15, 2005) as 70 FR 944. As a result of 

this supplemental rule, PM2.5 nonattainment designations are in effect for 39 areas, comprising 

208 counties within 20 States (and the District of Columbia) nationwide, with a combined

population of about 88 million. The New Jersey portion of the New York-N.New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-CT, PM2.5 nonattainment area, and the New Jersey portion of the PhiladelphiaWilmington, PA-NJ-DE, PM2.5 nonattainment area are included in the list of areas not attaining 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The New Jersey portion of the New York-N.New Jersey-Long Island, 

NY-NJ-CT, PM2.5 nonattainment area consists of the following counties in the State of New 

Jersey: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and 

Union Counties. The New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE, PM2.5
4

nonattainment area consists of the following counties: Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester 

Counties in the State of New Jersey.

It should be noted that on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA relabeled the existing 

designation tables in 40 CFR part 81.331 to clarify the 1997 designations for the 24-hour PM2.5 

NAAQS. The designation for the New Jersey portion of the New York-N.New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-CT, PM2.5 nonattainment area was designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The designation for the New Jersey portion of the PhiladelphiaWilmington, PA-NJ-DE, PM2.5 nonattainment area was designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

B. Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule 

On April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20586), EPA issued the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule 

(PM2.5 Implementation Rule) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

describes the CAA framework and requirements for developing SIPs for areas designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (attainment plans). An attainment plan must include a 

demonstration that a nonattainment area will meet the applicable NAAQS within the time 

provided in the statute. This demonstration must include modeling (40 CFR 51.1007) that is 

performed in accordance with EPA modeling guidance (EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007). It must 

also include supporting technical analyses and descriptions of all relevant adopted Federal, state, 

and local regulations and control measures that have been adopted in order to provide attainment 

by the proposed attainment date. 

For the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, an attainment plan must show that a nonattainment area will attain 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but within five years of designation (i.e. 

attainment date of April 2010 based on air quality data for 2007-2009). If the area is not 

expected to meet the NAAQS by April 2010, a state may request to extend the attainment date by 

one to five years based on the severity of the nonattainment problem or the feasibility of 

implementing control measures (CAA section 172(a)(2)) in the specific area. For EPA to 

approve an extension of the attainment date beyond 2010, the state must provide an analysis to 

support the request and demonstrate that the attainment date is as expeditious as practicable for 

the area given the facts and circumstances of the area and consistent with the statutory criteria for 

an extension. 

For each nonattainment area, the state must demonstrate that it has adopted all reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT), 

needed to provide for attainment of the PM2.5 standards in the area “as expeditiously as 

practicable.” The PM2.5 Implementation Rule provides guidance for making these RACM and 

RACT determinations. Any measures that are necessary to meet these requirements which are 

not already either federally promulgated or in an EPA-approved part of the SIP must be 

submitted as part of the state’s attainment plan. Any state measures must meet the applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements, and in particular, must be federally enforceable.

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule also includes guidance on pollutants that states must address in 

their attainment plans. The Clean Air Act (section 302(g)) authorizes EPA to regulate criteria 
5

pollutants and their precursors. In the case of PM2.5, the main chemical precursors are sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ammonia (NH3), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

The effect of reducing emissions of precursor pollutants that contribute to PM2.5 concentrations 

varies by area, however, depending on PM2.5 composition, emission levels, and other areaspecific factors. For this reason, the PM2.5 Implementation Rule provided guidance 

recommending that states elect direct PM2.5 emissions and the precursor that would be most 

effective for attaining the NAAQS within the specific area, based upon an appropriate technical 

demonstration. 

In accordance with the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, direct PM2.5 emissions means “solid particles 

emitted directly from an air emissions source or activity, or gaseous emissions or liquid droplets 

from an air emissions source or activity which condense to form particulate matter at ambient 

temperatures. Direct PM2.5 emissions include elemental carbon, directly emitted organic carbon, 

directly emitted sulfate, directly emitted nitrate, and other inorganic particles (including but not 

limited to crustal material, metals, and sea salt).” 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires all states to address SO2 as a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor and to evaluate SO2 for possible control measures in all PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

States are also required to address NOX as a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor and evaluate 

reasonable controls for NOX in PM2.5 attainment plans, unless the state and EPA make a finding 

that NOX emissions from sources in the state do not significantly contribute to PM2.5 

concentrations in the relevant nonattainment area. 

Although current scientific information shows that certain VOC emissions are precursors to the 

formation of secondary organic aerosol, and significant progress has been made in understanding 

the role of gaseous organic material in the formation of organic particulate matter (PM), this 

relationship remains complex. Further research and technical tools are needed to better 

characterize emissions inventories for specific VOC compounds and to determine the extent of 

the contribution of specific VOC compounds to organic PM mass. Because of these factors, the 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule did not require states to address VOCs as PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursors and evaluate them for control measures, unless the state or EPA makes a finding that 

VOCs significantly contribute to the PM2.5 nonattainment.

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule describes the formation of particles related to NH3 emissions, 

which is a complex, nonlinear process. Though recent studies have improved our understanding 

of the role of NH3 in aerosol formation, ongoing research is needed to better describe the 

relationships between NH3 emissions, particulate matter concentrations, and related impacts. 

Also, area specific data are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of reducing NH3 emissions on 

reducing PM2.5 concentrations in different areas, and to determine where NH3 decreases may 

increase the acidity of particles and precipitation. For these reasons, in the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, NH3 is presumed not to be a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor, meaning that the state is not 

required to address NH3 in its attainment plan or evaluate sources of NH3 emissions for reduction 

measures, unless the state or EPA makes a finding that NH3 significantly contributes to a PM2.5 

nonattainment. 

The presumptive inclusion of NOX and the presumptive exclusion of VOC and NH3 as attainment 
6

plan precursors can be reversed based on an acceptable technical demonstration for a particular 

area by the state or EPA. Such a demonstration should include information from multiple 

sources, including results of speciation data analyses, air quality modeling studies, chemical 

tracer studies, emission inventories, or special intensive measurement studies to evaluate specific 

atmospheric chemistry in an area (See PM2.5 Implementation Rule for more information). 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule also provided guidance on other elements of a state’s attainment 

plan, including, but not limited to, emission inventories, contingency measures, and MVEBs 

used for transportation conformity purposes. 

There are, however, three aspects of the PM2.5 Implementation Rule for which EPA received 

petitions requesting reconsideration. These pertain to the presumption or advance determination 

that compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) automatically 

satisfies the requirements for reasonably available control technology (RACT) or reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) for NOx or SO2 emissions from electric generating unit 

(EGU) sources participating in regional cap and trade programs; the suggestion in the preamble 

that the economic feasibility element of a RACT determination should include consideration of 

whether the cost of a measure is reasonable in light of the benefits; and the policy described in 

the preamble of allowing certain emissions reductions from outside the nonattainment area to be 

credited as meeting the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirement. EPA has granted these 

petitions. The attainment plan for the New Jersey portion of the New York-N.New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-CT, PM2.5 nonattainment area, and the New Jersey portion of the PhiladelphiaWilmington, PA-NJ-DE, PM2.5 nonattainment area did not rely on any of these aspects of the 

rule.

III. DETERMINATIONS OF ATTAINMENT

EPA finalized determinations of attainment in the November 15, 2010 Federal Register (75 FR 

69589) that the New York –N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT, PM2.5 nonattainment area, 

referred to from this point forward as the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area, had attained the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and had attained the NAAQS by its required attainment date of April 5, 

2010. The determinations were based upon complete, quality assured, quality controlled, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data that showed that the area had monitored attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 monitoring period by its attainment date of April 5, 2010. 

Ambient air monitoring data for 2010, 2011, and the first half of 2012 are consistent with 

continued attainment. 

As part of this rulemaking, EPA proposes to add regulatory language under Part 52, chapter I, 

title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations concerning the Determination of Attainment for the 

NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area by the April 5, 2010 attainment date. Although EPA had 

included regulatory language under Part 52, Subpart FF in the November 15, 2010 Federal 

Register (75 FR 69589) that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA had inadvertently not included appropriate regulatory language that the area 
7

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 by the applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. EPA will 

amend Part 52 as indicated if this proposed action is finalized

On May 16, 2012, EPA finalized determinations of attainment in the Federal Register (77 FR 

28782) that the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE, PM2.5 nonattainment area, referred to this 

point forward as the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area, had attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and had attained the NAAQS by its required attainment date of April 5, 2010. The 

determinations were based upon complete, quality assured, quality controlled, and certified 

ambient air monitoring data that showed that the area had attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

based on ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 monitoring periods. 

Ambient air monitoring data for 2011 and the first half of 2012 are consistent with continued 

attainment 

Under the provisions of EPA's PM2.5 Implementation Rule (40 CFR 51.1004(c)), the 

requirements for New Jersey to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, 

reasonable further progress plan, and contingency measures related to attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS for the New Jersey portions of the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area and the 

PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 PM2.5 nonattainment area are suspended for as long as the areas continue to 

attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Although the requirements are suspended for the elements listed above for the state’s attainment 

plan, and the state may withdraw the submitted elements, EPA proposes to approve the 

attainment demonstration, as well as the RACT/RACM analysis, which are approvable based on 

EPA’s analysis. See sections IV and V regarding EPA's analysis and the approvable elements of 

New Jersey's attainment plan submittal.

IV. COMPONENTS OF NEW JERSEY’S ATTAINMENT PLAN

In accordance with Section 172(c) of the CAA and with the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the 

attainment plan submitted by the State for the New Jersey portion of the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 

nonattainment area (referred to this point forward as the Northern New Jersey PM2.5 

nonattainment area), and the New Jersey portion of the PA-NJ-DE, PM2.5 nonattainment area 

(referred to this point forward as the Southern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area) included: 

emission inventories for the plan’s base year (2002) and projection year (2009); an attainment 

demonstration showing how the two nonattainment areas met the required April 5, 2010 

attainment date for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; an analyses of future-year emissions 

reductions and air-quality improvements expected to result from national and local programs and 

from new measures to meet RACT/RACM requirements; adopted emission-reduction measures 

with schedules for implementation; motor-vehicle emissions budgets for the nonattainment year; 

and contingency measures. 
8

To analyze future-year emissions reductions and air-quality improvements, New Jersey utilized 

the regional air quality monitoring that was conducted for ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze. 

New Jersey first introduced this modeling in its 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration1 for 

modeling the ozone problem in the northeastern United States. The ozone season (May 1-

September 30) photochemical modeling was combined with additional months of air quality 

modeling to predict attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This modeling was performed 

in accordance with EPA’s "Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for 

Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze" (EPA454/B-07-002, April 2007). 

V. EPA’S REVIEW OF NEW JERSEY’S ATTAINMENT PLAN 

SUBMITTAL

A. Pollutants Addressed

In accordance with policies described in the PM2.5 implementation rule, New Jersey’s PM2.5

attainment plan evaluates emissions of direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOx in the Northern and Southern 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. With regard to evaluation of PM2.5 precursors, the PM2.5

Implementation Rule requires that SO2 be evaluated for controls in all nonattainment areas, and 

describes general presumptive policies for NOx, ammonia, and volatile organic compounds 

(VOC). For NOx, States are required to address NOx as a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor and 

evaluate reasonable controls for NOx in PM2.5 attainment plans, unless the State makes a finding 

that NOx emissions in the State do not significantly contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the 

area. For ammonia, because of uncertainties regarding ammonia emissions inventories and the 

efficacy of ammonia control technologies, the final rule set forth the presumption that ammonia 

is not a PM2.5 precursor and that States are not required to address ammonia in their attainment 

plan. Similarly, VOC emissions are presumed not to be an attainment plan precursor because of 

uncertainties regarding the role of VOC in secondary organic aerosol formation. 

B. Emission Inventory Requirements

EPA’s review of the emission inventory component for the plan’s base year and projection year 

is provided in the Northern New Jersey PM2.5 Inventory Technical Support Document (TSD), 

and the Southern New Jersey PM2.5 Inventory TSD. 

C. Attainment Demonstration Modeling

All attainment demonstrations must include modeling that is performed in accordance with 

EPA’s “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of 

Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze” (EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007). 

Modeling may be based on national (e.g., EPA), regional (e.g., Ozone Transport Commission), 

 1 New Jersey submitted the Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP on October 29, 2007. 
9

local modeling, or a combination thereof, if appropriate. A description of the modeling used to 

support New Jersey’s attainment demonstration follows.

Ambient PM2.5 typically includes both primary PM2.5 (directly emitted) and secondary PM2.5

(e.g., sulfate and nitrate formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere). Some of the 

physicochemical processes leading to formation of secondary PM2.5 may take hours or days, as 

may some of the removal processes. Thus, some sources of secondary PM2.5 may be sources 

outside of the nonattainment area. To cover a sufficient geographic area to take these processes 

into account and to use state resources more efficiently, the Ozone Transport Commission on 

behalf of its member states (which include New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, and 

Pennsylvania) performed photochemical grid modeling for their multi-state nonattainment areas. 

The OTC Modeling Committee, which coordinated preparing and running the photochemical 

grid model, chose the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model as the photochemical 

grid model of choice. Since the model predicts both ozone, and PM2.5 ambient concentrations, the

same parameters were used in the modeling runs used to demonstrate attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS. EPA concurs that this model is appropriate for modeling the formation and distribution 

of PM2.5. The model domain covered almost all of the eastern United States, with a highresolution grid covering the states in the northeast ozone transport region, including New Jersey. 

Under the direction of the OTC Modeling Committee, several states and modeling centers 

performed the regional modeling runs and contributed to the regional modeling effort, including 

the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the Ozone 

Research Center at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of NJ/ Rutgers (UMDNJ/ORC), the 

University of Maryland (UMD), the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Management 

(NESCAUM), and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Agency (MARAMA). The 

NYSDEC ran the CMAQ model for the May 1 through September 30 ozone season, which was 

supplemented by modeling runs performed by UMDNJ/ORC (March and April), NESCAUM 

(October, November, December), and the UMD (January, February) for the purposes of 

determining PM2.5 attainment.

The OTC Modeling Committee used annual 2002 meteorology for the modeling analysis. 2002 

was the base year for the attainment plans and the year of the emission inventory used in the base 

year modeling. The OTC Modeling Committee used a Mesoscale Meteorological model, (MM5) 

version 3.6, a weather forecast model developed by Pennsylvania State University and the 

National Center for Atmospheric Research for the weather conditions used by the photochemical 

grid model. Details about how the states used the MM5 model are in Appendix B3 of New 

Jersey’s SIP submittal. 

States across the eastern United States provided emissions information from their sources to be 

used in the model. MARAMA collected and quality assured the states’ emissions data and 

processed these data for the photochemical grid model to use. The states also included the 

control measures that were already adopted as well as the control measures that the state was 

committing to adopt from a list of “Beyond On the Way” (BOTW) control measures, which 

would provide additional emission reductions. Emissions data for the model from outside the 

Northeast was obtained from other regional planning organizations. States provided projected 
10

emissions for 2009 that account for emission changes due to regulations the states plan to 

implement prior to 2009, as well as expected growth. The modeling uses these emissions to 

calculate PM2.5 concentrations in 2009. 

Table 1 lists the control measures that New Jersey took into account in the projected 2009 

BOTW CMAQ run. 

Table 1: Modeled Control Measures Included in the 2009 BOTW Model Run for New 

Jersey

Pre-2002 with benefits achieved Post-2002 - On the Books

Federal

Residential Woodstove New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) beyond Stage II

Tier 1 Vehicle Program

National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV)

Tier 2 Vehicle Program/Low Sulfur Fuels

Heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDV) Defeat Device Settlement

HDDV Engine Standards

Nonroad Diesel Engines

Large Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines over 19 kilowatts

Recreational Vehicles (includes snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, and all-terrain 

vehicles)

Diesel Marine Engines over 37 kilowatts 

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

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

19 kilowatts

Acid Rain

Post-2002 - On the Books

New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort

Consumer Products 2005 
11

Architectural Coatings 2005 

Portable Fuel Containers 2005 (Area Source Only)

Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing

Solvent Cleaning

NOx RACT Rule (2006)

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

New Jersey Only

Stage I and Stage II (Gasoline Transfer Operations)

On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) – Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program for 

Gasoline Vehicles

Federal

USEPA Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) Standards

CAIR (NOx Controls in 2009 Only)

Refinery Consent Decrees (Sunoco, Valero, and ConocoPhillips)

Post-2002 - Beyond on the Way

New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort

Consumer Products 2009 Amendments

Portable Fuel Containers 2009 Amendments (Area Source Only)

Asphalt Paving

Adhesives and Sealants

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boiler Rule 2009 

New Jersey Only

New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program

Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Mercer)

Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Hudson NOx)
12

NOx emission reductions from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) were included in the list of 

control measures that New Jersey took into account in the projected 2009 BOTW CMAQ run. 

EPA published CAIR on May 12, 2005 (76 FR 70093), to address the interstate transport 

requirements of the CAA. EPA approved New Jersey rules that allowed the State to allocate 

NOx allowances to New Jersey sources beginning in 2009, on October 1, 2007 (72 FR 55666). 

As originally promulgated, CAIR requires significant reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOx to 

limit the interstate transport of these pollutants. In 2008, however, the D.C. Circuit remanded 

CAIR back to EPA. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176. The Court found CAIR to be 

inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur because it found that “allowing 

CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with [the court’s] opinion would 

at least temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.” North Carolina v. 

EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. CAIR remained in place following the remand and was in place and 

enforceable through the April 5, 2010, attainment date. 

In response to the court’s decision, EPA has issued a new rule to address interstate transport of 

NOx and SO2 in the eastern United States (i.e., the Transport Rule, also known as the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule). See 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011. In the Transport Rule, EPA finalized 

regulatory changes to sunset (i.e., discontinue) CAIR and the CAIR FIPs for control periods in 

2012 and beyond. See 76 FR 48322.

On December 30, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued an order addressing the status of the Transport 

Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the Transport 

Rule pending judicial review. In that order, the D.C. Circuit stayed the Transport Rule pending 

the court’s resolution of the petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA is expected to 

continue to administer CAIR in the interim until the court rules on the petitions for review of the 

Transport Rule.

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit vacated the Transport Rule, EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302, ruling that EPA had exceeded the agency’s statutory authority. 

However, the decision on the Transport Rule, does not disturb EPA’s determination that it is 

appropriate to move forward with this proposed action. This action proposes to approve an 

attainment plan that demonstrated that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area and the PA-NJDE PM2.5 nonattainment area would attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 2010, which it 

did, as discussed in section III. The air quality analysis conducted for the Transport Rule 

demonstrates that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5

nonattainment area would be able to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS even in the absence 

of CAIR or the Transport Rule. See Appendix B to the Air Quality Modeling Final Rule 

Technical Support Document for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.2 Nothing in the D.C. 

 2 See referenced document at http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf
13

Circuit’s August 2012 decision disturbs or calls into question that conclusion or the validity of 

the air quality analysis on which it is based. More importantly, the Transport Rule is not relevant 

to this action. The Transport Rule only addresses emissions in 2012 and beyond. As such, 

neither the Transport Rule itself, nor the vacatur of the Transport Rule, is relevant to the question 

addressed in this proposal notice. The purpose of this action is to determine whether the 

attainment plan submitted by New Jersey is sufficient to bring the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area into attainment by the April 

2010 attainment date, a date before the Transport Rule was even promulgated. 

Similarly, the status of CAIR after the April 2010 attainment date is also not relevant to this 

action since CAIR was in place and enforceable through the attainment date. CAIR was an 

enforceable control measure applicable to affected sources in the area, as well as sources 

throughout the Eastern United States. As such, the current status of CAIR is irrelevant to and 

does not impact our conclusion that the attainment plan should be approved. Moreover, in its 

August 2012 decision, the Court also ordered EPA to continue implementing CAIR. See EME 

Homer City, slip op. at 60. For these reasons, neither the current status of CAIR nor the current 

status of the Transport Rule affects any of the criteria for proposed approval of this SIP revision.

Table 2 shows which BOTW measures that would be implemented in each state in the Ozone 

Transport Region (OTR), which New Jersey is a part of, to achieve benefits in 2009. These 

measures were included in the BOTW model run for each state in the OTR. Some states in the 

OTR have chosen to adopt different control strategies than New Jersey. 

Table 2: Ozone Transport Region-Wide Modeling Assumptions for the 2009 BOTW Model 

Run

Consume

r 

Products 

2005/200

9

Portable 

Fuel 

Container 

2005/200

9

Asphalt 

Paving

Adhesive

s & 

Sealants

ICI Boilers - Area 

Sources 

ICI Boilers - Non-EGU Point 

Sources

Cement 

Kilns

Glass 

Furnace

s

Asphalt 

< 25 Plants

mm

Btu/

hr

25-50 

mmBtu/

hr

50-100 

mmBt

u/hr

< 25 

mmBt

u/hr

25-50 

mmBt

u/hr

50-100 

mmBt

u/hr

100-250 

mmBtu/

hr

>250 

mmBtu/

hr

NY 

NAA

CT x x x x x x x x x x x x

NJ x x x x x x x x

NY x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Phila. 

NAA

DE x x x x
14

MD x x x x x x x

NJ x x x x x x x x

PA x x x x

Othe

r 

State

s

ME x x x x

NH x x x x x x

VT

MA x x x x

RI x x x x

DC x x x x x

*Source: MACTEC. Development of Emission Projections for 2009, 2012, and 2018 for NonEGU Point, Area, and 

Nonroad Sources in the MANE-VU Region, Final TSD. Prepared for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management 

Association by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., February 28, 2007

Tables 1 and 2 do not include additional measures, which the state had planned to implement by 

2010, that would result in additional emissions reductions of direct PM2.5 and precursors. These 

additional measures, shown in Table 3 below, which were not included in the photochemical grid 

modeling, and which have been subsequently adopted by the State, were submitted by New 

Jersey to provide additional evidence that the New Jersey associated nonattainment areas would 

attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the required April 5, 2010 attainment date. 

 

Table 3: Control Measures Adopted by New Jersey Not Captured in the 2009 BOTW 

Model Run

Federal

New Nonroad Engine Standards
15

Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per 

cylinder

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

Residential Buildings

State

Diesel Idling Rule Changes

Diesel Smoke (I/M Cutpoint) Rule Changes

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

Emission Limits)

Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) NOx rule

New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle Program from fleet turnover post 2009

On-road Fleet Turnover and Non-road equipment turnover post 2009

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

Nonattainment New Source Review

Asphalt Production Plants Rule

Glass Manufacturing

High Electric Demand Day (HEDD Program)

Oil and Gas Fired Electric Generating Units (EGU’s) rule (portion not modeled from consent 

decrees)

Sewage sludge incinerators

NOx RACT Rule 2006 (portion not modeled)

ICI Boiler Rule 2009 (portion not modeled)

Low Sulfur Distillate and Residual Fuel Strategies

Smoke Management

In summary, New Jersey is relying on “modeled” ” control measures to demonstrate that the NYNJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area would reach attainment 
16

by April 5, 2010, and has also included additional “non-modeled” measures as additional support 

for attainment and continued attainment. 

EPA provided guidance to states and tribes for projecting PM2.5 concentrations using a 

“speciated modeled attainment test” (SMAT) (EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007). EPA also 

provided a software program (Model Attainment Test Software “MATS”) that allows calculation 

of future year PM2.5 design values using the SMAT assumptions contained in the modeled 

guidance3. MATS uses the following PM2.5 species: sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, directly emitted 

inorganic particles, elemental carbon, organic carbon, particle bound water, and blank mass (and 

optionally salt). Once modeling for a projection year and a base year are complete, relative 

response factors (RRFs) are computed for sulfate, nitrate, directly emitted inorganic particles, 

elemental carbon, and organic carbon. For each monitoring location, the quarterly RRF for a 

component is computed as the ratio of the projection year divided by the base year modeled 

concentration for a three-by-three array of modeled grid cells centered on the monitoring 

location. The projection year concentrations are calculated by multiplying quarterly base year 

concentrations by the RRF for each PM2.5 component. The particulate ammonium is then 

calculated based on the future year sulfate and nitrate concentrations, using a constant value for 

the degree of neutralization of sulfate (from the ambient data). The future year particle bound 

water concentration is calculated from the empirical formula derived from the future year 

concentrations of sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium. The blank mass is held constant to the future. 

The sum of the estimated projection year component concentrations is the estimated projection 

year PM2.5 concentration. If future estimates of PM2.5 concentrations are less than the 1997 

NAAQS, then the modeling indicates attainment of the standard.

PM2.5 includes a mixture of components that can behave independently from one another (e.g., 

primary vs. secondary particles) or that are related to one another in a complex way (e.g., 

different secondary particles). Thus, it is appropriate to consider PM2.5 as the sum of its major 

components. As recommended in EPA’s modeling guidance, New Jersey divided PM2.5 into its 

major components and noted the effects of a strategy on each. The effect on PM2.5 was estimated 

as a sum of the effects on individual components. Future PM2.5 design values at specified 

monitoring sites were estimated by adding the future-year values of the seven PM2.5 (sulfates, 

nitrates, ammonium, organic carbon, elemental carbon, particle bound water, other primary 

inorganic particulate matter) components. 

For the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area, all future site-specific PM2.5 design values were 

below the concentration specified in the NAAQS. The highest value predicted in the 

nonattainment area was from the monitor located on Broad Street in Philadelphia, PA, and the 

predicted value was 13.9 μg/m3

. Therefore, the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area passed the 

SMAT.

For the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area, future site-specific PM2.5 design values were 

below the concentration specified in the NAAQS with the exception of the PS59 monitoring site 

located in New York County. The projected 2009 value of 15.3 μg/m3 for PS59 was within the 

weight-of-evidence range of values, 14.5 μg/m3 to 15.5 μg/m3

, as defined in the PM2.5 modeling 

guidance (EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007). 

 3 MATS is available at: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/modelingapps_mats.htm
17

Photochemical Modeling Results

The USEPA recommends using the regional photochemical model estimates in a “relative” 

rather than “absolute” sense, due to the uncertainties and biases in the modeling system. Thus, 

the assumption is that the change between the modeled base year (2002) and the modeled future 

year (2009) reflects the impact of growth and control over time and is an appropriate use of the 

results. The “absolute” modeled results are used in a “relative” sense by applying the ratios of 

the model’s future to current (baseline) predictions at each PM2.5 monitor to the actual 2002 

design values, thereby grounding the future design value to the monitored results. These ratios 

are termed the “relative reduction factor” (RRF). An RRF is defined by the USEPA as the ratio 

of a future maximum concentration predicted “near a monitor” to a baseline maximum 

concentration predicted “near the monitor” averaged over selected days.4,5 More simply put, the 

RRF is the ratio of average future concentrations over average baseline concentrations for each 

monitoring site. 

The baseline design values used in the modeling application were calculated differently from the 

monitored design values although both are based on monitored ambient air quality data. The 

monitoring design values are calculated as the three-year average of the one-year annual average 

values where the one-year annual average value for a given year is first calculated using the 

quarterly average of the daily values at each monitoring site. In other words, the quarterly 

average mass is calculated first, and then the average annual mass is calculated from the 

quarterly values for a given year. For modeling purposes, the baseline design value is calculated 

by averaging three three-year design value periods, centered on the base inventory year of 2002. 

Specifically, the modeling baseline design value was calculated using the 2000-2002, 2001-2003, 

and 2002-2004 periods. For more information about the modeling design values and how they 

were calculated, see Appendices B11-1 and B11-2 of New Jersey’s attainment plan. The average 

annual base line design value (DVB-I) as shown in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 was calculated using 

the three, three-year average design values centered around the 2002 base year. These values, 

calculated using the five years of monitoring data from 2000 to 2004, were then applied to the 

modeling output using the relative reductions as determined by the future year modeling.

Four monitoring sites located in New Jersey contain monitors that measure the component 

species of PM2.5 and are designated as Speciation Trends Network (STN) monitors. These 

monitors are located in Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswick. The STN monitoring 

program provides for the concentration of major ions, carbon compounds, and trace elements 

which constitute the bulk of the PM2.5 mass. The STN samplers operate on a one-in-three day 

sampling schedule. It is important to note that only one of the STN samplers, the Camden 

monitor, is located in the Southern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area; the other three 

 4 ibid. 

5 “Near a monitor” was determined by using an average of the concentration predicted within a 3x3 array of grid 

cells surrounding each monitor, as recommended by the USEPA for 12-km grid resolution modeling.
18

(Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswick) are located in the Northern New Jersey PM2.5 

nonattainment area.

Most of the samples from the PM2.5 monitoring sites in New Jersey are collected and analyzed 

according to the Federal Reference Method (FRM). The FRM for fine particulate matter 

requires a 24-hour collection period using a filter-based collection method to measure fine 

particulate mass. The FRM samplers, like the STN samplers, operate on a one-in-three day 

schedule. Also, as per the network design requirements, several FRM sites have collocated 

duplicate samplers or measure fine particulate matter by other means than the Federal Reference 

Method (e.g., Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) sampling).

It is important to understand the unique aspects of measuring and modeling particulate matter as 

it relates to determining attainment. The PM2.5 attainment test uses both the total PM2.5 mass 

results from the FRM monitors as well as the individual components of PM2.5 as measured at the 

STN sites. Therefore, the modeled attainment test for PM2.5 is called the Speciated Modeled 

Attainment Test (SMAT). In order to perform the recommended modeled attainment, the 

observed total mass concentrations of PM2.5 as measured at the FRM monitoring sites need to be 

first partitioned into seven components (plus passive mass).6 These components are:

· Mass associated with sulfates

· Mass associated with nitrates

· Mass associated with ammonium

· Mass associated with organic carbon

· Mass associated with elemental carbon

· Mass associated with particle bound water

· Mass associated with “other” primary inorganic particulate matter, and

· Passively collected mass.

A separate site specific calculation of the quantity of the component species was performed for 

each of these PM2.5 components (except passive mass) for each FRM monitoring site. This 

calculation applied the same ratio of each species collected from the “nearest” STN site, to the 

total PM2.5 mass measured at the FRM site. Each of these site-specific ratios is called a 

component-specific design value. 

Future PM2.5 design values were estimated at each existing FRM monitoring site by multiplying 

the modeled RRF “near” each monitor times the observed “component specific design value.” 

Future total PM2.5 design values at a site were then estimated by summing the future year design 

values of the seven PM2.5 components. If the total of all future species-specific PM2.5 annual 

design values for each site was less than or equal to 15.0 μg/m3

, the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

test for attainment of the standard, is passed.

 6 The monitors are located either within the boundaries of the nonattainment area, or in close proximity to the 

nonattainment area.
19

Since the USEPA Speciated Modeled Attainment Test software is not available for the states to 

use for their attainment demonstrations, the following procedure was performed by the NYSDEC 

and the UMDNJ/ORC (see attainment plan appendices B2, B11-1, B11-2, and B12), following 

the USEPA guidance for modeling attainment of the PM2.5 health standard, to analyze the 2009 

BOTW modeling results.

1. Using the data provided by the USEPA Region 27 on the monitored levels of particulate 

matter through the USEPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) database, the quarterly averages 

of Federal Reference Method (FRM) mass for each monitor were determined.

2. The average quarterly STN speciation ratio for the years 2002 to 2004 (using the 

Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswick, New Jersey and the four New Yorksited STN monitors to determine the fraction of each species that would be present in the 

total PM2.5 mass measured at the FRM monitoring sites) was determined. (Note: In order 

to ensure that comparable mass measurements between STN and FRM measurement 

techniques were used, an adjustment for a blank correction was made to remove the blank 

mass). 

3. The quarterly RRF values from the modeling results for all the species using the 2002 

Base B1 and 2009 BOTW B4 were calculated (Note: nine cell averages of the grid cells 

surrounding each monitoring site were used to calculate the RRF.)

4. The measured FRM mass at each monitoring site was divided by the total mass into the 

individual species using the ratio from Step 2.

5. Computed future values of species other than water and ammonia through RRF scaling 

using the Degree of Neutralization (DON) and future sulfate, retained nitrate to estimate 

the ammonia concentration, and a polynomial approximation from the NYSDEC to 

estimate water within the total PM2.5 mass.8 

6. The blank mass was then added back to the total mass to determine the total measured 

PM2.5 mass so that the predicted modeled results could be directly compared to measured 

concentrations.

The following equation illustrates how New Jersey calculated the future design values for each 

monitoring site (i):

(RRF)ij for each species = ([Cj,projected of species x ]/[Cj,current of species x])i

Where:

 7 Personal communication by e-mail, entitled “Fw: Re: Files from MATS,” between Kenneth Fradkin, USEPA, 

Region 2 and Ray Papalski, NJDEP, August 17, 2007.

8 See Appendix B12.
20

Cj,current is the quarterly mean concentration of species x predicted at or near the monitoring site 

(i) with emissions characteristic of the period used to calculate the baseline design value for 

annual PM2.5

Cj,projected is the future year quarterly mean concentration of species x predicted at or near the 

monitoring site (i) from a representative STN monitoring location.

The design value for each species or component was then calculated as follows:

DVF-I for each species = (RRFI * DVB-I ) 

Where:

DVB-I = the average base concentration (design value) of each component monitored at site I, in 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3)

RRFI = the relative response factor calculated for each component at site (i) 

DVF-I = the estimated future design value for the time attainment is required, in μg/m3

The quarterly mean of each component was then summed to get quarterly mean PM2.5 values. 

Then the quarterly mean PM2.5 concentrations were averaged to get a future year annual average 

PM2.5 estimate for each FRM monitoring site. 

Table 4.1 shows the PM2.5 modeling results using the 2009 BOTW run for all monitors located 

within the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area.

Table 4.1: 2009 Modeled PM2.5 Design Values for the

NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

(Bold Type indicates Values over the Annual Standard of 15.0 μg/m3)
21

Site ID Monitoring Site Name State Name

Average Annual 

Baseline Design 

Value (DVB-I) (μg/m3)

Projected 2009 

Annual Design 

Value (DVF-I) 

(μg/m3)

90010010 Bridgeport - Roosevelt School Connecticut 13.1 11.5

90010113 Bridgeport - Congress Street Connecticut 12.6 11.2

90011123 Danbury Connecticut 12.8 11.2

90012124 Stamford Connecticut 12.9 11.4

90013005 Norwalk Connecticut 12.9 11.3

90019003 Westport Connecticut 11.8 10.4

90090018 New Haven - Stiles Street Connecticut 16.3 14.4

90091123 New Haven- 715 State St Connecticut 13.7 11.7

90092123 Waterbury Connecticut 13.1 11.2

90099005 Hamden Connecticut 11.6 9.9

340030003 Fort Lee Library New Jersey 13.7 12.1

340130015 Newark Cultural Center New Jersey 13.9 11.8

340130016 Newark Lab New Jersey 14.7 12.5

340171003 Jersey City Primary New Jersey 14.9 13.3

340172002 Union City New Jersey 16.0 14.3

340210008 Trenton New Jersey 13.9 11.8

340218001 Washington Crossing New Jersey 11.9 10.1

340230006 New Brunswick New Jersey 12.5 10.4

340270004 Morristown New Jersey 12.4 10.4

340273001 Chester New Jersey 11.1 9.3

340310005 Paterson New Jersey 13.2 11.4

340390004 Elizabeth New Jersey 15.7 13.5

340390006 Elizabeth Downtown New Jersey 13.5 11.8

340392003 Rahway New Jersey 13.1 11.4

360050080 Morrisania Center -Gerard Ave. New York 15.8 14.2
22

Site ID Monitoring Site Name State Name

Average Annual 

Baseline Design 

Value (DVB-I) (μg/m3)

Projected 2009 

Annual Design 

Value (DVF-I) 

(μg/m3)

360050083 Botanical Gardens New York 13.8 12.4

360050110 East 156 Street New York 14.7 13.3

360470052 PS 314-60th St and GowanusExp. New York 15.2 13.4

360470076 PS 321- 180 7th Ave. New York 14.4 12.7

360470122 JHS 126 424 Leonard St New York 14.7 13.0

360590012 East Hills Elementary School New York 11.9 10.5

360590013 1055 Stewart Place New York 12.0 10.6

360610056 PS 59, 288 E. 57th St., Manhattan New York 17.4 15.3

360610062 Post Office, 350 Canal St. New York 16.3 14.1

360610079 School IS 45, 2351 1st Ave. New York 14.7 12.9

360610128 PS 19, 185 1st Avenue New York 15.9 14.0

360710002 NYC- 55 Broadway New York 11.5 10.2

360810094 NYC- PS 29 125-10 23rd Avenue New York 13.7 12.1

360810096 NYC- 3115 140th Street New York 13.7 12.1

360810124 NYC- 14439 Gravett Road New York 13.3 11.8

360850055 Post Office, 364 Port Richmond New York 14.0 12.0

360850067 Susan Wagner New York 12.1 10.4

361030001 East Farmingdale Water Plant New York 12.1 10.6

361191002

5th Avenue & Madison, Thruway 

Exit 9 New York 12.3 10.8

As can be seen from this table, the only site with a projected 2009 design value greater than the 

annual fine particulate standard of 15.0 μg/m3 is the P.S. 59 site located in Manhattan, New York 

City. All other sites are below the annual fine particulate standard. The projected 2009 value for 

the P.S. 59 site is within the weight-of-evidence range of values defined in the PM2.5 modeling 

guidance as 14.5 μg/m3 through 15.5 μg/m3

.

9

 

 9 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analysesfor Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals 

for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC, 

EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007, page 105.
23

Table 4.2 below shows the PM2.5 modeling results using the 2009 BOTW run for all monitors 

located within the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area.

Table 4.2: 2009 Modeled PM2.5 Design Values for the

PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

(Bold Type indicates Values over the Annual Standard of 15.0 μg/m3)

Site ID Monitoring Site Name State Name

Average Annual 

Baseline Design Value 

(DVB-I) (μg/m3)

Projected 2009 

Annual Design 

Value(DVF-I) 

(μg/m3)

100031003 Bellefonte Delaware 14.7 12.6

100031007 Lums2 Delaware 13.6 11.4

100031012 Newark-Univ. Del. No. Campus Delaware 15.0 12.8

100032004 Wilmington Delaware 16.0 13.7

340070003 Camden New Jersey 14.3 12.3

340071007 Pennsauken New Jersey 14.3 12.4

340155001 Clarksboro New Jersey 13.7 11.8

420170012 Bristol Pennsylvania 14.1 12.0

420290100 New Garden (Airport) Pennsylvania 14.9 12.5

420450002 Chester Pennsylvania 15.3 13.3

420910013 Norristown Pennsylvania 13.7 11.9

421010004 Frankford (Lab) Pennsylvania 14.9 12.9

421010014

Philadelphia- Roxy Water Pump 

Station Pennsylvania 13.6 11.8

421010020

Philadelphia- Belmont Avenue 

Water Plant Pennsylvania 14.2 12.4

421010024 Philadelphia - Northeast Airport Pennsylvania 13.8 11.8

421010047

Philadelphia- 500 South Broad 

Street Pennsylvania 16.1 13.9

421010052

Philadelphia- 1439 East Passyunk 

Avenue Pennsylvania 13.1 11.4
24

Site ID Monitoring Site Name State Name

Average Annual 

Baseline Design Value 

(DVB-I) (μg/m3)

Projected 2009 

Annual Design 

Value(DVF-I) 

(μg/m3)

421010136 Philadelphia- Southwest (Elm) Pennsylvania 14.5 12.6

As can be seen from this table, all sites in the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area are projected 

to be below the annual fine particulate standard of 15.0 μg/m3 and below the weight of evidence 

range of values. 

New Jersey used a multi-analysis and weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach to support the results 

from the modeled attainment test. In addition to the speciated modeled attainment test, New 

Jersey presented the following information, which is further described in the TSD, to 

demonstrate attainment by April 5, 2010:

· Air monitoring data measured from 2000 to 2006 at monitoring sites in both the PA-NJDE and the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment areas showed declining ambient PM2.5 

concentrations

· Technical information from a New York State weight-of-evidence presentation 

concerning the PS59 monitoring site: incomplete data in the third quarter of 2003 due to 

construction work at the site, and lack of collocated speciation data, may have resulted in 

an estimate of PM2.5 being above the level of the NAAQS at the PS59 monitor

· Additional measures from New York that were not represented in the projection 

inventories for 2009 and that will contribute to attainment at the PS59 monitor

· Additional measures from New Jersey that were not included in the projection year 

inventories for 2009 that would likely lead to PM2.5 concentration below the 2009 

modeled design values and support New Jersey’s demonstration of attainment of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in its two multistate nonattainment areas 

As a result of this WOE review, New Jersey concluded that the State of New Jersey, and the 

New Jersey associated nonattainment areas will attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the required 

2010 attainment date.

Complete, quality assured, quality controlled, and certified air quality data from 2007-2009, 

2008-2010, and 2009-2011 are available for air monitors in both NJ-associated PM2.5

nonattainment areas. Under EPA’s modeling guidance, this data would be considered evidence 

to be weighed in a weight-of-evidence process. 

EPA published a Federal Register (75 FR 69589) on November 15, 2010 finalizing that the NYNJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained the PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon monitored 

attainment during the 2007-2009 monitoring period. Ambient air monitoring data for 2008-2010 

and 2009-2011 show continued attainment. EPA had reviewed ambient air monitoring data for 

PM2.5 consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50 and recorded in the EPA Air 
25

Quality System (AQS) database. The 3-year averages of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations 

are less than the NAAQS of 15.0 ug/m3. Table 5 shows the design values by county for the NYNJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area PM2.5 monitors for the years 2001 through 2011. Overall, 

county design values continued to decline across the nonattainment area through 2011. As 

shown in table 5, the column labeled 06-08 DV indicates that, beginning in 2006-2008, all 

county design values have been below the NAAQS of 15.0 ug/m3.

 

Table 5.-Design Values by County for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-NJ-CT monitors in 

Micrograms per Cubic Meter (ug/m3

). The standard for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 15.0 μg/m3

01-03 02-04 03-05 04-06 05-07 06-08 07-09 08-10 09-11

County DV DV DV DV DV DV DV DV DV

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Bronx 15.7 15.2 15.7 15.1 15.5 14.3 13.9 12.5 11.9

Kings 14.7 14.2 14.6 14.0 14.0 12.9 12.2 10.8 10.3

Nassau 12.2 11.7 12.1 11.5 11.4 10.9 10.3 9.5 8.9

New York 17.5 16.7 17.0 15.7 15.9 14.9 14.0 12.1 11.7

Orange 11.5 11.1 11.4 10.8 10.8 10.0 9.3 8.5 8.2

Queens INC 12.8 12.7 12.1 11.8 11.3 10.6 10.0 INC

Richmond 12.0 11.5 11.8 13.4 13.2 12.4 11.6 10.5 8.5

Rockland NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM

Suffolk 12.1 11.3 11.5 INC INC 10.5 9.7 8.9 8.4

Westchester 12.3 11.7 11.9 11.6 11.7 11.2 10.6 9.6 9.1

Bergen INC 12.8 13.3 12.8 13.2 12.2 11.3 9.8 9.2

Essex INC 13.5 INC 13.2 13.3 INC INC INC INC

Hudson 14.7 14.3 14.7 14.1 14.0 14.1 13.1` 11.6 11.1

Mercer 13.8 13.0 13.0 12.7 12.5 11.9 10.8 10.0 9.7

Middlesex 12.4 11.8 12.5 11.8 12.1 11.3 10.4 8.8 7.9

Monmouth NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM

Morris INC 11.6 11.9 11.2 11.3 10.3 9.6 8.7 8.5

Passaic INC 12.9 13.1 12.6 12.9 12.3 11.3 9.8 INC

Somerset NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM

Union 15.5 15.3 15.5 14.8 14.4 13.6 12.6 11.6 11.4

Fairfield 13.1 12.7 13.3 13.2 13.2 12.4 11.3 10.0 9.4

New Haven 13.9 13.4 13.5 13.0 12.8 12.2 11.4 10.3 9.6

NM- No monitor located in county

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

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

of access, and replaced with a new monitor at the Newark Firehouse. PM2.5 monitoring was established at the firehouse on May 13, 

2009. The monitors in Queens and Passaic had incomplete data due to instrument malfunction, and/or insufficient sampling frequency in 

one quarter.

On May 16, 2012, EPA finalized in the Federal Register (77 FR 28782) a determination that the

PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon ambient 

air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 monitoring periods. Ambient air 

monitoring data for 2011 is consistent with continued attainment. The 3-year averages of the 

annual mean PM2.5 concentrations are less than the NAAQS of 15.0 ug/m3. Table 6 shows the 

design values by county for the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area monitors for the years 2001 

through 2011. The design values have declined across the nonattainment area since 2001. As 

shown in table 6, the column labeled 04-06 DV indicates that ambient air monitoring data has 

been less than or equal to the NAAQS, beginning in 2004-2006. 
26

Table 6.-Design Values by County for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the PA-NJ-DE monitors in 

Micrograms per Cubic Meter (ug/m3

). The standard for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 15.0 μg/m3

01-03 02-04 03-05 04-06 05-07 06-08 07-09 08-10 09-11

County DV DV DV DV DV DV DV DV DV

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

New Castle 16.2 15.3 15.1 14.8 14.7 14.2 13.0 11.7 10.7

Camden INC 13.7 13.8 13.3 13.5 12.7 11.7 10.3 9.7

Gloucester 13.5 12.8 13.5 INC INC INC 11.4 10.0 INC

Burlington NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM

Bucks 14.3 13.9 13.9 13.2 13.2 12.6 12.2 11.3 10.9

Chester INC INC 15.2 INC INC INC 13.9 13.8 INC

Delaware 15.4 15.1 15.7 15.0 15.0 14.1 13.7 13.3 12.9

Montgomery 14.1 INC INC INC INC 12.3 11.7 10.5 10.1

Philadelphia 16.2 15.4 15.2 INC INC INC 13.0 12.0 11.4

NM- No monitor located in county

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

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

EPA proposes to find that the attainment demonstration modeling to be acceptable. New Jersey 

has followed EPA’s modeling guidance, and demonstrated through modeling and the weight-ofevidence process that the area would reach attainment by April 5, 2010.

D.Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires a State to submit a separate RFP plan for any area for 

which the State justifies an extension of the attainment date beyond 2010. Areas that 

demonstrate attainment of the standard by 2010 are considered to have satisfied the requirement 

to show reasonable further progress toward attainment and need not submit a separate RFP plan. 

There are separate RFP requirements for those nonattainment areas with attainment dates beyond 

2010. 

Since New Jersey has submitted an attainment demonstration that shows attainment by the 2010 

deadline, thus satisfying the RFP requirement, a separate RFP plan is not necessary. 

E. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology 

Requirements 

CAA section 172(c) (1) requires that each attainment plan “provide for the implementation of all 

reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable (including such 

reductions in emissions from the existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the 

adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT), and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.” EPA interprets RACM 

including RACT under section 172 as measures that a state finds are both reasonably available 

and contribute to attainment as expeditiously are practicable in the nonattainment area. Thus, 

what constitutes RACM or RACT in a PM2.5 nonattainment area is closely tied to the expeditious 

attainment demonstration of the plan. 40 CFR section 51.1010; 72 FR 20586 at 20612. 
27

States are required to evaluate RACM/RACT for direct PM2.5 emissions and all of the area’s 

attainment plan precursors. 40 CFR section 51.1002 (c); 72 FR 20586 at 20589 - 97. Consistent 

with the guidance provided for the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, a state initially must evaluate 

RACM/RACT for sources that emit direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOx. A state may establish with an 

appropriate demonstration that it should not regulate NOx in the specific nonattainment area, so 

it could thereby forgo evaluation of RACM/RACT for NOx. Because EPA concluded that VOC 

and ammonia are presumptively not regulatory precursors for PM2.5, unless the state or EPA 

determines that it is necessary to regulate them in a specific nonattainment area, the state is not 

required to evaluate RACM/RACT for sources of VOC or ammonia unless there is a 

determination supported by an appropriate demonstration that such emissions need to be 

regulated for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS in the specific area.

For PM2.5 attainment plans, the PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires a combined approach to 

RACM and RACT under subpart 1 of Part D of the CAA. Subpart 1, unlike subparts 2 and 4, 

does not identify specific source categories for which EPA must issue control technique 

documents or guidelines, or identify specific source categories for state and EPA evaluation 

during attainment plan development. 72 FR 20586 at 20610. Rather, under subpart 1, EPA 

considers RACT to be part of an area’s overall RACM obligation consistent with the section 172 

definition. Because of the variable nature of the PM2.5 problem in different nonattainment areas 

which may require states to develop attainment plans that address widely disparate 

circumstances, EPA determined not only that states should have flexibility with respect to 

RACT/RACM controls but also that in areas needing significant emission reductions, 

RACT/RACM controls on smaller sources may be necessary to reach attainment as expeditiously 

as practicable. 72 FR 20586 at 20612, 20615. Thus, under the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 

RACT and RACM are those reasonably available measures that contribute to attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable in the specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR section 51.1010; 72 FR 

20586 at 20612.

Specifically, the PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires that attainment plans include the list of 

measures that a state considered and information sufficient to show that the state met all 

requirements for the determination of what constitutes RACT/RACM in a specific nonattainment 

area. 40 CFR section 51.1010(a). In addition, the rule requires that the state, in determining 

whether a particular emissions reduction measure or set of measures must be adopted as 

RACT/RACM, consider the cumulative impact of implementing the available measures and to 

adopt as RACT/RACM any potential measures that are reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility if, considered collectively, they would advance the 

attainment date by one year or more. If a measure or measures is not necessary for expeditious 

attainment of the NAAQS in the area, then by definition that measure is not RACT/RACM for 

purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in that area. Any measures that are necessary to meet these 

requirements which are not already either federally promulgated, part of the state’s SIP, or 

otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted in enforceable form as part of a state’s attainment 

plan for the area. 72 FR 20586 at 20614. 
28

Guidance provided in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule for evaluating RACT/RACM level 

controls for an area also indicated that there could be flexibility with respect to those areas that 

were predicted to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS within five years of designation as a result of 

existing national or local measures. 72 FR 20586 at 20612. In such circumstances, EPA 

indicated that the state may conduct a more limited RACT/RACM analysis that does not involve 

additional air quality modeling. Moreover, the RACT/RACM analysis for such area would focus 

on a review of reasonably available measures, the estimation of potential emissions reductions, 

and the evaluation of the time needed to implement the measures. Thus, the PM2.5

Implementation Rule guidance recommended that not all areas would need to conduct as 

rigorous an analysis, and suggested that a less rigorous analysis would be needed for those areas 

expected to attain within the initial five years from designation as a nonattainment area for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

A more comprehensive discussion of the RACT/RACM requirement for PM2.5 attainment plans 

and EPA’s guidance for it can be found in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule preamble. 72 FR 

20586 at 20609 – 20633.

a. New Jersey’s RACT/ RACM Analysis

New Jersey’s RACT/RACM analysis for potential control measures was divided into two parts: 

A PM2.5 RACT assessment for existing major stationary point sources, and a RACM analysis 

for all other sources (mobile and area sources).

The State’s RACT/RACM analysis appears in sections 4.3.1.5.5 and 4.3.1.5.4 and Appendices 

A7 and A8 of the attainment plan submission. Based upon the emissions inventory for the area, 

the State determined that it would be appropriate to evaluate sources of PM2.5, SO2, and NOx 

located in the nonattainment area for potential control as RACT/RACM. The State did not 

determine that controls of sources of VOC or ammonia would be necessary for expeditious 

attainment of the NAAQS in this area, nor does EPA believe that there is a need to do so. 

New Jersey used several information gathering efforts with industry, environmental groups, and 

the general public in order to get the greatest input on identifying all RACT/RACM control 

measures. These efforts also looked at the stringency of the existing requirements and the 

evaluation of potentially new controls for significant emission reductions to improve air quality. 

New Jersey started the "Reducing Air Pollution Together " (RAPT) Initiative, a joint effort with 

the public and other interested parties (including industry, state and local government 

representatives, and environmental groups), to determine potential air emission reduction 

strategies. The NJDEP commenced the effort by hosting a public workshop on June 29, 2005. At 

the workshop, six air quality workgroups were formed to focus on key sources of emissions 

resulting in nonattainment of federal air quality standards and to recommend control strategies to 

reduce these emissions. The workgroups collaborated over several months on how to reduce air 

emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources. The workgroups were tasked with 

identifying reasonable and effective control measures, using criteria that included technical 

feasibility, economic feasibility, environmental benefits, and implementation feasibility. The air 

quality workgroups compiled their recommendations into reports that are available at 
29

http://www.nj.gov/dep/airworkgroups/index.html. The workgroups presented a summary of their 

recommendations for further consideration to the NJDEP Air Quality Management Team on 

November 14, 2005. The NJDEP provided an update on the state air quality planning efforts, 

including the review of the workgroup recommendations, at a second RAPT workshop on May 

17, 2006.

New Jersey performed additional information gathering through its participation in regional 

control development efforts with the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), the Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA), Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE-VU), and the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). 

For the RACT analysis, NJDEP included an internal assessment of RACT controls, including a 

review of EPA’s fifty-six Control Techniques Guidelines and Alternative Control Technologies, 

as well as a review of the State’s existing case-by-case determinations, or alternative emission 

limits and facility specific emission limits.

The results of these information gathering efforts were consolidated and presented to the NJDEP 

Air Quality Management team for its consideration. The Air Quality Management team then 

discussed and prioritized the recommendations resulting in a list of approximately 60 potential 

control measures for further evaluation. 

Each control measure was subsequently evaluated by NJDEP staff based on information 

collected regarding emission benefits, implementation issues, cost-effectiveness, and existing 

controls. White papers were developed and utilized to further inform the decision for 

determining RACT and RACM control measures. The white papers were then made available for 

public comment. After reviewing and taking into consideration the comments received on the 

white papers, the NJDEP revised or updated the white papers as needed. The white papers are 

posted at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/rapt/wp.html. The white papers were then used to 

further inform the decision for determining RACT and RACM control measures.

b. PM2.5 RACT

For the PM2.5 RACT analysis submitted with the April 1, 2009 SIP submission, New Jersey 

focused its PM2.5 RACT reevaluation on direct PM2.5 emissions and SO2. A RACT analysis 

focusing on the ozone precursors (NOx and VOC) was included in a separate RACT submission 

for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA on August 1, 2007. Since NOx is considered an 

attainment plan precursor for PM2.5 as well as ozone, the 8 hour ozone RACT analysis was 

proposed for the PM2.5 RACT requirement as well. New Jersey’s 8 hour ozone RACT analysis 

has been included in the docket.

NJDEP initially identified about 100 facilities with actual 2002 and 2003 emissions of 5 tons per 

year or more of PM10 (as a surrogate for PM2.5) or SO2. NJDEP further determined that 

facilities with greater than 25 tons per year emissions accounted for 80% and 98% of total 
30

stationary source emissions statewide for PM10 and SO2, respectively. NJDEP then reviewed 

the source equipment, and corresponding emissions inventories, located at these facilities, and 

developed a list of types of equipment (emission units) with actual emissions of at least 5 tons 

per year of PM10 and SO2. Focusing its feasibility assessment on those emission units, NJDEP 

conducted a review of current state and federal requirements such as New Jersey Administrative 

Code (NJAC) 7:27-4, NJAC 7:27-6, and 7:27-9, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 

Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT), and an evaluation of whether existing 

controls at the time of installation were previously considered Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT), Lowest Available Emission Rate (LAER) or State of the Art (SOTA). In 

addition NJDEP evaluated other states’ regulations, such as those in effect in California, and 

information listed in the USEPA’s RACT/ BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC). Based on this 

analysis, NJDEP developed a list of sources with the greatest potential for significant reductions 

of particulate matter and SO2 emissions. Additional source categories were identified in 

conjunction with the public and regional efforts to identify control measures.

New Jersey performed a PM2.5 RACT reevaluation after EPA finalized the Clean Air Fine 

Particle Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. NJDEP focused its PM2.5 RACT 

reevaluation on direct PM2.5 emissions. To evaluate RACT, the NJDEP set cutoff thresholds of 

25 tons per year at the facility level, and equipment emitting 10 tons per year of actual PM2.5. 

Since facilities did not report PM2.5 emissions in 2002, the NJDEP used 2005 actual emissions as 

a baseline in the reevaluation to determine the potential for reductions in determining what 

source categories and the types of emission units that may require additional control.

Based on the emission inventory information and the available control measures for each of the 

source categories, the State identified the following source categories that should be evaluated 

for further controls:

- Glass furnaces

- Stationary Diesel Engines

- Petroleum Refineries

- Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) PM portion

- Iron and Steel Furnaces

- No. 6 Fuel-oil Fired Boilers

- Fugitive Dust Sources

New Jersey considered the technical and economic feasibility of the application of control 

technology that is reasonably available for each of the source categories, including reviewing the 

affected equipment, viable control strategies, existing regulations, potential rule strategies, 

projected emission reductions, and supporting references. Details of the results of New Jersey’s 

analysis are included in Appendix A7 of the New Jersey SIP. 

Table 7 lists the RACT source categories for which the State adopted as new or revised emission 

standards along with the targeted pollutants and affected rules and categories. They were also 

included in NJ’s ozone SIP since they also targeted precursors for ozone. The ozone SIP revision 
31

was approved by EPA on May 15, 2009 (74 FR 22837). New Jersey adopted all of the rules 

listed in Table 6 on or before March 20, 2009. 

There were no additional PM-specific RACT measures available that would qualify as RACM 

since they could not be implemented early enough to advance the attainment date. 

Table 7: New Jersey PM2.5 RACT

Source Categories Targeted Pollutants Affected Rules

NOx VOC SO2 PM2.5

Asphalt pavement production 

plants

X N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.9

Glass manufacturing furnaces X X X N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.2, 19.10

Industrial, Commercial & 

Institutional Boilers

X N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.7

Coal-fired EGU Boilers X X X N.J.A.C. 7:27-4, 10 & 

19.4

Oil and Gas fired EGUs X N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.4

High Electrical Demand Day 

EGUs

X N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.4, 19.5, 

& 19.29

Case by Case, FacilitySpecific Emission Limit & 

Alternative Emission Limit

X X N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.17 & 

19.13

Municipal Waste Combustors 

(incinerators) NOx rule

X N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.12

Sewage sludge incinerators X N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.28

c. PM2.5 RACM

New Jersey performed a RACM analysis to determine if there were control measures that were 

reasonably available and that could advance the attainment date by at least one year. 
32

The evaluation criteria for this analysis included:

-Technological Feasibility 

- Economic Feasibility 

- Other considerations including measures that do not cause “substantial widespread and longterm adverse impacts” and measures that are not “absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable”

- Advancement of the Attainment Date 

New Jersey provided an analysis of potential control measures for mobile (both onroad and 

nonroad), area, and point (not already subject to the PM2.5 RACT analysis) emission source 

categories. New Jersey’s RACM analysis was divided into two parts: a controls measure 

analysis for transportation control measures (TCMs), which reduce emissions by reducing the 

number and/ or length of vehicle trips and/or improve traffic flow, and a controls measure 

analysis for non-TCM control measures.

For the PM2.5 RACM analysis submitted with the April 1, 2009 SIP submission, New Jersey 

focused its RACM evaluation on direct PM2.5 emissions and SO2. A RACM analysis focusing on 

the ozone precursors (NOx and VOC) was included in a separate RACM submission for the 8-

hour ozone NAAQS to EPA on August 1, 2007. Since NOx is considered an attainment plan 

precursor for PM2.5 as well as ozone, the 8 hour ozone RACM analysis was proposed for the 

PM2.5 RACM requirement as well. New Jersey’s 8 hour ozone RACM analysis has been 

included in the docket.

TCM Measures

The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), in consultation with the NJDEP, 

identified 26 measures to be evaluated as prospective mobile source measures that could be 

considered reasonably available control measures. NJDOT analyzed each measure for its 

potential emissions reduction benefit, economic feasibility, technological feasibility, 

practicability and potential adverse impact. NJDOT also performed a political feasibility analysis 

on the 26 measures and ranked the measures as “high”, “medium”, or “low”. Eleven of the 

measures were rated “ high”, and are listed in table 8 below:

Table 8: Potential New Jersey PM2.5 TCM RACM

Measure Description

Retrofit Construction 

Equipment

Twenty percent of the construction equipment used on state projects 

must use a combination of retrofit technology and Ultra Low Sulfur 

(ULSD)
33

Truck Idling Restrictions Truck idling restrictions will be implemented statewide. In an effort to 

avoid fines and other negative repercussions resulting from continued 

idling, both fleet and individual truck owners would invest in idling 

reduction technology

Major Transit Infrastructure 

Projects

Encourage the use of transit through the completion of major 

transit projects, including rail extensions

Adoption of Smart Growth 

Land Use Policies

Adoption of policies to produce more compact forms of urban 

development that would promote increased use of walk/bicycle 

modes for short distance trips, increased use of mass transit, less 

auto travel due to reduced driving distances, etc). 

“Clean Fleets” Replacements This measure looks at benefits from replacing 100 old fleet 

vehicles in each county and replacing them with new hybrid 

vehicles.

School Bus Replacements All model year 2002 and older buses would be replaced with 

model year 2007 diesel buses.

IdleAire Installations To reduce idling of long haul trucks, installation of technology 

(i.e. IdleAire) that allows the drivers to shut off their engines and 

provide the cabs with heating and/or air conditioning

Transit Bus Replacements All model year 2002 and older buses would be replaced with 

model year 2007 diesel buses.

School Bus Retrofits Older, higher-emitting buses would be fitted with emissions 

reducing retrofit technology.

Express E-Z Pass Toll 

Collection

To alleviate excessive delays associated with toll plazas during 

peak periods, install express EZ-Pass higher speed toll collection 

facilities that allow traffic to pass safely at close to mainline 

speeds. Toll Plazas are scheduled to have new high speed lanes 

in operation prior to 2009/2010. 

Commercial Vehicle 

Information Systems and 

Networks

Improve truck freight movement through the electronic 

transmission of data between commercial vehicles and weigh 

stations. 
34

One measure, School Bus Replacement of model years 2002 and older to be replaced with model 

year 2007 buses, passed on all RACM criteria, but could not be implemented early enough to 

advance the attainment date from 2010 to 2009. The measure would have needed to be in place 

by 2008 to achieve reductions in 2009. A detailed RACM analysis for each control measure is 

located in Attachment A3 of the state’s attainment plan.

Non-TCM Measures

NJDEP reviewed a variety of sources of information, such as, those from regional planning 

organizations, other state organizations, existing NJDEP documents, EPA regional efforts, and 

New Jersey State organizations to develop a list of 628 potential non-transportation control 

measures (non-TCMs). Over 250 potential control measures were developed from New Jersey’s 

"Reducing Air Pollution Together Initiative". White papers were developed and utilized to 

further inform the decision for determining RACM control measures. Fifteen non-TCMs passed 

technological, economic, and local consideration criteria, and are listed in table 9 below:

Table 9: Potential New Jersey PM2.5 Non-TCM RACM

Measure Description

Voluntary wood stove and 

fireplace retrofit/change-out 

programs

Voluntary wood stove and fireplace retrofit programs for units 

manufactured pre 1992, including but not limited to replacing 

fireplaces with natural gas inserts and/or with non-catalytic certified 

wood stoves. Program would include financial incentives and public 

education to promote use of Gas Logs/elimination of wood burning.

Mandatory wood stove and 

fireplace retrofit/change-out 

programs

Mandatory Installation of natural gas or propane fireplace and/or 

USEPA certified wood-fired appliances in all new construction. 

Homeowners changing out their wood burning fireplaces in 

nonattainment counties would be required to convert to natural gas. 

Homeowners with units manufactured pre-1992 would be required 

to change-out units before the sale of their home

Amend the Air Pollution 

Control Act to allow counties 

to regulate outdoor wood 

burning

Amend the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act to allow for 

county or local ordinances that restrict or prohibit outdoor wood 

burning within all or sections of their municipality and county

Establish a moratorium on 

the sale and distribution of 

OWBs until implementation 

of USEPA regulations

Establish a moratorium, through the Governor's Executive Order or 

through legislation, on the sale and distribution of new OWBs until 

the implementation of USEPA rules or standards. 
35

Establish provisions on 

minimum chimney height 

and distances to houses/ 

property lines for outdoor 

wood boilers 

Require the installation of OWBs to be at least 200 feet from the 

nearest neighboring residence. The height of the chimney for any 

OWB installed must be more than the roof peaks of the residences 

located within 500 feet of the OWB, provided the chimney height is 

not more than 55 feet

Commitment to adopt state 

rules in the absence of 

Federal Action on OWBs

A commitment that New Jersey will consider State rules or 

standards, if after 5 years, the USEPA has not acted to implement 

rules or standards for OWBs

Implement standards for 

chain driven charbroilers

Implement standard that mandates usage of chain-driven 

charbroilers equipped with control device, such as catalytic oxidizer

Energy conservation and 

green building for residential 

and commercial building 

construction

Voluntary program to encourage homebuilders to offer potential 

homeowners the option of constructing their homes with energy 

conservation and clean energy features prior to construction

Enhance New Jersey’s open 

burning permit requirements

Restrict permits to lands/farms, and require removal of “sellable” 

items before burning. Increase permit fees

PM-efficient units for street 

sweeping

Limit the purchase of new street sweepers to PM-efficient units

New Jersey to lower the 

sulfur content in fuel oil

Reduce sulfur in fuel oil by lowering the emission limits of fuel 

oil. A uniform sulfur content value and maximum allowable 

SO2 emissions value for each of the grades of fuel oil would be 

set throughout the state. 

New Jersey to update and 

strengthen existing opacity 

requirements

Update and strengthen requirements for onroad vehicles

Emission Testing and 

repair/maintenance program 

for nonroad heavy duty 

equipment

Establish an emission testing and repair/maintenance program for 

nonroad heavy duty equipment

Reduce coastal ship speeds Require vessels to travel at or below 12 knots within 20 miles of 

the coast (during arrivals and departures)

Voluntary Lawn Mower 

Replacement Program

Encourage trading of gasoline powered mowers by providing 

funds to offset the purchase of electric mowers
36

New Jersey determined that none of the measures could not be implemented by 2008, and 

therefore would not achieve any reduction benefits in 2008. 

New Jersey noted in their SIP revision that they intend to pursue other measures which will help 

the state attain the new 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. These measures include lowering the sulfur content 

of fuel oil, which has since been adopted by the state. EPA approved revisions to New Jersey’s 

Subchapter 9, Sulfur in Fuels rule, on January 3, 2012 as part of EPA’s approval of the New 

Jersey Regional Haze SIP10. This rule will reduce the sulfur content in all distillate heating oil 

(No.2 and lighter distillate fuel) to 500 parts per million (ppm) by July 1, 2014 and to 15 ppm by 

July 1 ,2016. The adopted rule will also reduce the sulfur content in No.4 fuel oil to a consistent 

2,500 ppm throughout the State and reduce the sulfur content in No.5, No.6, and heavier fuel oil 

to 5,000 ppm or less on July 1, 2014. New Jersey estimated11 a total SO2 emission reduction in 

2014 and 2016 from the new sulfur in fuel standards of 1,544 tons per year.

d. RACT/ RACM Conclusion

EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey’s evaluation of the RACT/RACM control measures for 

the Northern and Southern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

New Jersey evaluated all source categories that could contribute meaningful emission reductions 

and identified and evaluated an extensive list of control measures. The State considered the time 

needed to develop and adopt regulations and the time needed to see the benefit from these 

measures achieved as a further screen of their reasonableness and availability. The State has 

proceeded with the adoption of RACT rules that were also included in NJ’s ozone SIP since they 

also targeted precursors for ozone. EPA has reviewed the RACT/RACM analysis submitted by 

New Jersey, and finds that there were no additional measures that would have advanced the area 

attainment date of April 5, 2010. 

As noted previously, the most current monitoring data for the Northern and Southern New Jersey 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas indicates that the areas are attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s 

guidance for the PM2.5 Implementation Rule recommended that if an area was predicted through 

the attainment plan to attain the standards within five years after designation, then the State 

would not need to conduct and submit additional RACM/RACT analyses. In light of the fact that 

the Northern and Southern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment areas are now attaining the 

standards, EPA proposes to conclude that the attainment plan meets the RACT/RACM 

requirements of the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, and that the level of control in the State’s 

attainment plan constitutes RACM/RACT for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule defines RACT/RACM as that level of control that is necessary to 

 10 Federal Register notice: 77 FR 19 (January 3, 2012) 11 New Jersey Register notice: 41 N.J.R. 4156 (November 16, 2009)
37

bring the area into attainment, the current level of federally enforceable controls on sources 

located within the area is by definition RACT/RACM for these areas for this purpose.

New Jersey’s demonstration for attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is based on the federally 

enforceable control measures identified in New Jersey’s April 1, 2009 SIP submittal and listed in 

this TSD’s table 1 titled, “Modeled control measures included in the 2009 BOTW Model Run for 

New Jersey”, table 3 titled, “Control Measures Adopted by New Jersey Not Captured in the 2009 

BOTW Model Run”, and table 7 titled, “New Jersey PM2.5 RACT. 

F. Contingency Measures

In accordance with section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, the PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires that 

PM2.5 attainment plans include contingency measures. Contingency measures are additional 

measures to be implemented in the event that an area fails to meet RFP or fails to attain a 

standard by its attainment date. These measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures 

that can be implemented quickly if the area fails to meet RFP or fails to attain by its attainment 

date, and should contain trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule. In addition, they 

should be measures not already included in the SIP control strategy and should provide for 

emission reductions equivalent to one year of RFP. 

The attainment plan for the Northern and Southern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

included contingency measures, shown in Table 10 below, to be implemented if the areas failed 

to attain by the required attainment date.

Table 10: New Jersey PM2.5 Attainment Contingency Measures

New Jersey Contingency 

Measures

Targeted Pollutants Affected Rules

NOx VOC SO2 PM2.5

Diesel idling X X NJAC 7:27-14.1, 14.3

Asphalt Production Plants 

Rule

X NJAC 7:27-19.9

Onroad Motor Vehicle 

Control Programs (Fleet 

turnover 2010)

X X Federal Tier 2 and 2007 

Heavy Duty Diesel 

Standards, NJAC 7:27-29

Nonroad Motor Vehicle 

Control Programs (Fleet 

turnover 2010)

X X X Federal 2004 Nonroad Diesel 

Rule

Municipal Waste Combustors 

(incinerators) NOx rule

X NJAC 7:27-19.12, 19.13
38

NOx RACT Rule 2006 

(portion not modeled)

X NJAC 7:27-19

Controls from EGU and 

Refinery Consent Decrees 

(additional emissions 

reductions)

X

All Federal and State contingency measures identified in the attainment plan have been adopted 

and implemented. EPA has previously approved the State rules listed in Table 10 into the SIP 

during previous agency actions12. 

As noted in section III of this TSD, EPA has finalized the determination that the NY-NJ-CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based on complete, qualityassured, quality controlled, certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 monitoring 

period. EPA has also finalized the determination that the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area 

had attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based on complete, quality-assured, quality controlled, 

certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009, and 2008-2010 monitoring periods. 

Because EPA is determining that the areas are attaining by its required attainment date, in 

accordance with CAA 179(c)(1), no contingency measures for failure to attain by this date need 

to be implemented, and further EPA action is unnecessary. Furthermore, as set forth in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, areas that attained the NAAQS by the attainment date are considered to 

have satisfied the requirement to show RFP, and as such do not need to implement contingency 

measures to make further progress to attainment. Since the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area 

and the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area have attained by the applicable attainment date, 

contingency measures submitted by New Jersey are no longer necessary to meet RFP 

requirements or attain the annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date, and further EPA action 

is unnecessary. Regardless of this determination, New Jersey has already adopted and 

implemented the control measures listed in Table 10.

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

The CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to “conform to” the 

goals of SIPs. This means that such actions will not: cause or contribute to violations of a 

NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely attainment of any NAAQS 

or any interim milestone. Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation 

conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state air quality 

 12 Federal Register notices: 72 FR 41626 (July 31, 2007), 73 FR 8200 (February 13, 2008), 74 FR 17781 (April 17, 

2009), 75 FR 45483 (August 3, 2010)
39

and transportation agencies, EPA, and FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long-range 

transportation plans (plans) and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to 

applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated emissions from existing 

and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (budgets) contained in a SIP.

In its submittal, New Jersey established three sets of budgets for the two MPOs within the two 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas in New Jersey. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

(DVRPC) is a bi-state MPO that covers four counties in New Jersey and five in Pennsylvania. Of 

its four New Jersey counties, three counties (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester) are part of the 

Southern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Because conformity is determined on a nonattainment area basis within a state, New Jersey 

established budgets for direct PM2.5 and NOX (a PM2.5 precursor) for these three combined 

counties. DVRPC would use these budgets to satisfy conformity requirements within the 

Southern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area.

New Jersey has also established separate “sub-area budgets” for the remaining DVRPC County 

(Mercer) and the nine counties covered by the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority 

(NJTPA) that lie within the Northern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area. Though the MPOs 

belong to the same nonattainment area within the state, these sub-area budgets allow each MPO 

to work independently to demonstrate conformity by meeting its own PM2.5 and NOX budgets. 

Each MPO must still verify, however, that the other MPO currently has a conforming plan and 

TIP prior to making a new plan/TIP conformity determination.

New Jersey has determined that other potential PM2.5 precursors (VOC, SO2, and NH3) are not 

significant and has not set budgets for them. In addition, New Jersey analyzed monitoring data 

and determined that re-entrained road dust and construction dust do not significantly contribute 

to PM2.5 concentrations, and therefore has not set budgets for either road or construction dust. 

Table 11 lists New Jersey's submitted budgets.

Table 11. 2009 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Submitted by New Jersey [Tons per year]

Nonattainment Area MPO PM2.5 NOx

Northern New Jersey North Jersey Transportation 

Planning Authority

842 44,321

Northern New Jersey Delaware Valley Regional 

Planning Commission 

(Mercer County only)

105 5,323
40

Southern New Jersey Delaware Valley Regional 

Planning Commission 

(Burlington, Camden, and 

Gloucester Counties)

341 17,319

For motor vehicle emissions budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, EPA's 

adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). EPA made an adequacy determination on New Jersey's 

2009 budgets on June 14, 2010 (75 FR 33614). In our Notice of Adequacy we found that the 

budgets complied with the adequacy criteria listed at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). When EPA 

determines that budgets are adequate for transportation conformity, we note that an adequacy 

finding does not imply that budgets will ultimately be approved. Consistent with our adequacy 

review of New Jersey's submittal and our subsequent thorough review of the entire SIP 

submission, EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's 2009 budgets.

The budgets that New Jersey submitted were calculated using the MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle 

emissions model. EPA is proposing to approve the inventory and the conformity budgets 

calculated using this model because this model was the most current model available at the time 

New Jersey was performing its analysis. Separate from today’s proposal, EPA has issued an 

updated motor vehicle emissions model known as the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator or 

MOVES. In its announcement of this model, EPA established a grace period for continued use 

of MOBILE6.2 in transportation conformity determinations for transportation plans and TIPs, 

after which states and metropolitan planning organizations (other than California) must use 

MOVES for transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations. (See 75 FR 9411 (March 2, 

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

Additional information on the use of MOVES in SIPs and conformity determinations can be 

found in the December 2009 Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for State 

Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes. This 

guidance document is available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/420b09046.pdf. 

During the conformity grace period, the State and MPO(s) should use the interagency 

consultation process to examine how MOVES2010a will impact their future transportation plan 

and TIP conformity determinations, including regional emissions analyses. For example, an 

increase in emission estimates due to the use of MOVES2010a may affect an area’s ability to 

demonstrate conformity for its transportation plan and/or TIP. Therefore, state and local 

planners should carefully consider whether the SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget(s) should 

be revised with MOVES2010a or if transportation plans and TIPs should be revised before the 

end of the conformity grace period, since doing so may be necessary to ensure conformity 

determinations in the future.

We would expect that states and metropolitan planning organizations would work closely with 

EPA and the local Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration offices 

to determine an appropriate course of action to address this type of situation if it is expected to 
41

occur. If New Jersey chooses to revise its PM2.5 attainment plan, it should consult Question 7 of 

the December 2009 Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for State Implementation Plan 

Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes for information on requirements 

related to such revisions.

VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EPA is proposing to approve several elements of New Jersey’s attainment plan including New 

Jersey’s attainment demonstration and motor-vehicle emissions budgets used for transportation 

conformity purposes, as well as the RACT/RACM analysis, and base-year and projection-year 

modeling emission inventories. 

EPA has determined that the SIP meets the applicable requirements of the CAA, as described in 

the PM2.5 Implementation Rule. Specifically, EPA has determined that New Jersey’s SIP 

includes an attainment demonstration and adopted state regulations and programs needed to 

support a determination that the Northern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area and the Southern 

New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area have attained the NAAQS by the April 2010 deadline.