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 Availabl e 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 (PM 2.5 ) Standard

PM 2.5 Attainment Demonstration

December 20122 

### 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 ATTA INMENT 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

................................ ................................ .......... 23 

### 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 Env ironmental Protection (NJDEP) on April 1, 2009. This SIP revision addresses the attainment plan of the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the New Jersey portion of the New York

- N.New Jersey

- Long I sland, NY

- NJ

- CT, PM 2.5 nonattainment area, and the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia

- Wilmington, PA

- NJ

- DE, PM 2.5 nonattainment area. The attainment plan includes New Jersey’s attainment demonstration, motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) used for tr ansportation 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS, including an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m 3 ) based on a 3

- year average of annual mean PM 2.5 con centrations and a 24

- hour (or daily) standard of 65 ug/m 3 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 PM 2.5

.

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 PM 2.5 NAAQS and by January 2001, established a complete set of air quality monitors. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EP A promulgated initial air quality designations for the 1997 PM 2.5 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, wit h the same effective date (April 15, 2005) as 70 FR 944. As a result of this supplemental rule, PM 2.5 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, PM 2.5 nonattainment area, and the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia

Wilmington, PA

- NJ

- DE, PM 2.5 nonattainment area are included in the list of areas not attaining the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The New Jersey portion of the New York

- N.New Jersey

- Long Island,
NY

- NJ

- CT, PM 2.5 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, PM 2.54 nonattainment area consists of the following counties: Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties in the State of New Jersey.

It shou ld 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The designation for the New Jersey portion of the New York

- N.New Jersey

- L ong Island, NY

- NJ

- CT, PM 2.5 nonattainment area was designated unclassifiable/attainment for the
1997 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. The designation for the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia

Wilmington, PA

- NJ

- DE, PM 2.5 nonattainment area was designated unclassif iable/attainment for the 1997 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

B. Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule

On April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20586), EPA issued the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule (PM 2.5 Implementation Rule) for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The PM 2. 5 Implementation Rule describes the CAA framework and requirements for developing SIPs for areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (attainment plans). An attainment plan must include a
demonstration that a nonattainment area will meet the a pplicable 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS, an attainment plan must show that a non attainment area will attain the 1997 PM 2.5 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 201 0, 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 o f 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 statut ory 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 PM 2.5 standards in the area “as expeditiously as practicable.” The PM 2.5 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 federall y 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 PM 2.5 Im plementation 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 criteria5 pollutants and their precursors. In the case of PM 2.5 , the main chemical precu rsors are sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), ammonia (NH 3 ), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The effect of reducing emissions of precursor pollutants that contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations varies by area, however, depending on PM 2.5 compo sition, emission levels, and other area

specific factors. For this reason, the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule provided guidance recommending that states elect direct PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule, direct PM 2.5 emissions means “solid particles emitted directly from an air emissions source or activity, or gaseous emissions or liqui d droplets from an air emissions source or activity which condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures. Direct PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule requires all states to address SO 2 as a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor and to evaluate SO 2 for possible control measures in all PM 2.5 nonattainment areas. States are also required to address NO X as a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor and evaluate
reasonable controls for NO X in PM 2.5 attainment plans, unless the state and EPA make a finding
that NO X emissions from sources in the s tate do not significantly contribute to PM 2.5 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 progre ss 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
PM 2.5 Implementation Rule did not require states to address VOCs as PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors and eval uate them for control measures, unless the state or EPA makes a finding that VOCs significantly contribute to the PM 2.5 nonattainment.

The PM 2.5 Implementation Rule describes the formation of particles related to NH 3 emissions, which is a complex, nonline ar process. Though recent studies have improved our understanding
of the role of NH 3 in aerosol formation, ongoing research is needed to better describe the relationships between NH 3 emissions, particulate matter concentrations, and related impacts. Also, area specific data are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of reducing NH 3 emissions on reducing PM 2.5 concentrations in different areas, and to determine where NH 3 decreases may increase the acidity of particles and precipitation. For these reasons, in the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule, NH 3 is presumed not to be a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor, meaning that the state is not required to address NH 3 in its attainment plan or evaluate sources of NH 3 emissions for reduction measures, unless the state or EPA ma kes a finding that NH 3 significantly contributes to a PM 2.5 nonattainment.

The presumptive inclusion of NO X and the presumptive exclusion of VOC and NH 3 as attainment6 plan precursors can be reversed based on an acceptable technical demonstration for a pa rticular 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 meas urement studies to evaluate specific atmospheric chemistry in an area ( See PM 2.5 Implementation Rule for more information).

The PM 2.5 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 pre sumption 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 cos t 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, PM 2.5 nonattainment area, and the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia

Wilmington, PA

- NJ

- DE, PM 2.5 nonattainment area did no t 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, PM 2.5 nonattainment a rea, referred to from this point forward as the NY

- NJ

- CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area, had attained the
1997 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS for the 2007

- 2009 monitoring period by its attainment date of April 5, 2010. Ambient air monitoring data for 2010, 201 1, 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 nonattainment area had attained the 1997
PM 2.5 NAAQS, EPA had inadvertently not included appropriate regulatory language that the area7 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, PM 2.5 nonattainment area, referred to this point forward as the PA

- NJ

- DE PM 2.5 nonattainment area, had attained the 1997 PM 2.5 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 th e area had attained the 1997 PM 2.5 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 provisi ons of EPA's PM 2.5 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
PM 2.5 NAAQS for the New Jersey portions of the NY

- NJ

- CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area and the
PA

- NJ

- DE PM 2.5 PM 2.5 nonattainment area are suspended for as long as the areas continue to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 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 r egarding 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 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule, the attainment plan submitt ed by the State for the New Jersey portion of the NY

- NJ

- CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area (referred to this point forward as the Northern New Jersey PM 2.5 nonattainment area), and the New Jersey portion of the PA

- NJ

- DE, PM 2.5 nonattainment area (referred to this point forward as the Southern New Jersey PM 2.5 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, 20 10 attainment date for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 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

- red uction 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 qu ality monitoring that was conducted for ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze. New Jersey first introduced this modeling in its 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstration 1 for modeling the ozone problem in the northeastern United States. The ozone season (May 1

- Sep tember 30) photochemical modeling was combined with additional months of air quality modeling to predict attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. This modeling was performed in accordance with EPA’s "Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for
D emonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze" (EPA

454/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 PM 2.5 imp lementation rule, New Jersey’s PM 2.5 attainment plan evaluates emissions of direct PM 2.5 , SO 2 , and NO
x in the Northern and Southern
PM 2.5 nonattainment areas. With regard to evaluation of PM 2.5 precursors, the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule requires that SO 2 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 PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor and
evaluate reasonabl e controls for NOx in PM 2.5 attainment plans, unless the State makes a finding that NOx emissions in the State do not significantly contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations in the area. For ammonia, because of uncertainties regarding ammonia emissions inventori es and the efficacy of ammonia control technologies, the final rule set forth the presumption that ammonia
is not a PM 2.5 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
i s 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 accorda nce with EPA’s “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze” (EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007). Modeling may be based on national (e.g., EPA), regional (e.g., Ozone Tr ansport Commission),

1 New Jersey submitted the Ozone Attainm ent 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 PM 2.5 typically includes both primary PM 2.5 (directly emitted) and second ary PM 2.5 (e.g., sulfate and nitrate formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere). Some of the physicochemical processes leading to formation of secondary PM 2.5 may take hours or days, as may some of the removal processes. Thus, some sources of seconda ry PM 2.5 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 C ommunity Multi

- scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model as the photochemical grid model of choice. Since the model predicts both ozone, and PM 2.5 ambient concentrations, the same parameters were used in the modeling runs used to demonstrate attainment of the ozone
N AAQS. EPA concurs that this model is appropriate for modeling the formation and distribution
of PM 2.5 . The model domain covered almost all of the eastern United States, with a high

resolution grid covering the states in the northeast ozone transport regio n, 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 Environmenta l 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 Mana gement 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 PM 2.5 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. T he 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

gr id 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 a ssured 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 projected10 emissions for 2 009 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 PM 2.5 concentrations in 2009.

Table 1 lists the control measures that New Jer sey 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 Performan ce 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 En gine 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

Con sumer Products 200511 Architectural Coatings 2005

Portable Fuel Containers 2005 (Area Source Only)

Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing

Solvent Cleaning

NO
x RACT Rule (2006)

New Jersey Heavy Duty Diesel Rules Including "Not

- To

- Exceed" (NTE) Requir ements

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 (NO
x Contr ols 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 On ly)

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 (P SE&G Hudson NO
x )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 req uires significant reductions in emissions of SO 2 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 w ith 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 cour t’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 SO 2 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. I n 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 Trans port 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 t hat 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 PM 2.5 nonattainment area and the PA

- NJ

DE PM 2.5 nonattainment area would attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NA AQS 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 PM 2.5 nonattainment area and the PA

- NJ

- DE PM 2.5 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.pdf13 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 Transpo rt 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 PM 2.5 nonattainment area and the PA

- NJ

- DE PM 2.5 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 releva nt 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 reas ons, 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 Re gion (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: Ozo ne 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 Gl ass Furnace

s Asphalt
Plants < 25

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

N Y x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Phila. NAA

DE x x x x14 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 a dditional emissions reductions of direct PM 2.5 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
Jers ey to provide additional evidence that the New Jersey associated nonattainment areas would
attain the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS by the required April 5, 2010 attainment date.

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

Federal

New Nonroad Engine Standards15 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 Pro gram 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 Di stillate and Residual Fuel Strategies

Smoke Management

In summary, New Jersey is relying on “modeled” ” control measures to demonstrate that the NY

NJ

- CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area and the PA

- NJ

- DE nonattainment area would reach attainment16 by April 5, 20 10, 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 PM 2.5 concentrations using a “speciated modeled attainment test” (SMAT) (E PA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007). EPA also provided a software program (Model Attainment Test Software “MATS”) that allows calculation of future year PM 2.5 design values using the SMAT assumptions contained in the modeled guidance 3 . MATS uses the following P M 2.5 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

respons e 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 PM 2.5 component. T he 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 calcul ated 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

yea r PM 2.5 concentration. If future estimates of PM 2.5 concentrations are less than the 1997 NAAQS, then the modeling indicates attainment of the standard.

PM 2.5 includes a mixture of components that can behave independently from one another (e.g., primary v s. secondary particles) or that are related to one another in a complex way (e.g., different secondary particles). Thus, it is appropriate to consider PM 2.5 as the sum of its major components. As recommended in EPA’s modeling guidance, New Jersey divide d PM 2.5 into its major components and noted the effects of a strategy on each. The effect on PM 2.5 was estimated as a sum of the effects on individual components. Future PM 2.5 design values at specified monitoring sites were estimated by adding the futur e

- year values of the seven PM 2.5 (sulfates, nitrates, ammonium, organic carbon, elemental carbon, particle bound water, other primary inorganic particulate matter) components.

For the PA

- NJ

- DE PM 2.5 nonattainment area, all future site

- specific PM 2.5 des ign 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/m 3 . Therefore, the PA

- NJ

- DE PM 2.5 n onattainment area passed the
SMAT.

For the NY

- NJ

- CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area, future site

- specific PM 2.5 design values were below the concentration specified in the NAAQS with the exception of the PS59 monitoring site located in New York County. The proj ected 2009 value of 15.3 μg/m 3 for PS59 was within the weight

- of

- evidence range of values, 14.5 μg/m 3 to 15.5 μg/m 3

, as defined in the PM 2.5 modeling guidance (EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007).

3 MATS is available at: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/modelingapps_mats.htm17 Photochemical Modeling Results

The USEPA recommends using th e 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 (20 09) 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 PM 2.5 mo nitor 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 predi cted “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 o f 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. Specifi cally, 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 p lan. The average annual base line design value (DV B

- 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 da ta 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 PM 2.5 and are design ated 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 nonattainment area; the other three

4 ibid.

5 “Near a monitor” was determined by using a n 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 PM 2.5 nonattainment area.

Most of the samples from the PM 2.5 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 req uirements, 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 PM 2.5 attainment test uses both the total PM 2.5 mass results from the FRM monitors as well as the individual components of PM 2.5 as measured at the
STN sites . Therefore, the modeled attainment test for PM 2.5 is called the Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT). In order to perform the recommended modeled attainment, the
observed total mass concentrations of PM 2.5 as measured at the FRM monitoring sites nee d 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 mass measured at the FRM site. Each of these site

- specific ratios is called a component

- specific design value.

Future PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 design values at a site were then estimated by summing the future year design
values of the seven PM 2.5 components. If the total of all future species

- specific PM 2.5 annual design values for each site was less than or equal to 15.0 μg/m 3 , the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, the

te st for attainment of the standard, is passed.

6 The monitors are located either within the boundaries of the nonattainment area, or in clo se 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 PM 2.5 health standard, to analyze the 2009 BOTW modeling results.

1. Using the data provided by the USEPA Region 2 7 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 th e Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswick, New Jersey and the four New York

sited STN monitors to determine the fraction of each species that would be present in the
total PM 2.5 mass measured at the FRM monitoring sites) was determined. (Note: In or der 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
individu al 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 polynom ial approximation from the NYSDEC to
estimate water within the total PM 2.5 mass. 8

6. The blank mass was then added back to the total mass to determine the total measured
PM 2.5 mass so that the predicted modeled results could be directly compared to measu red
concentrations.

The following equation illustrates how New Jersey calculated the future design values for each monitoring site (i):

(RRF) ij for each species = ([C j,projected of species x ]/[C j,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 C

j,current is the quarter ly 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 PM 2.5

C

j,projected is the future year quarterly mean concentration of spec ies 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:

DV F

- I for each species = (RRF I * DV B

- I )

Where:

DV B

- I = the average base concentration (design value) of each component monitored at site I, in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 )

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

DV F

- I = the estimated future design value for the time attainment is required, in μg/m 3

The quarterly mean of each component was then summed to get quarterly mean PM 2.5 values. Then the quarterly mean PM 2.5 concentrations were averaged to get a future year annu al average
PM 2.5 estimate for each FRM monitoring site.

Table 4.1 shows the PM 2.5 modeling results using the 2009 BOTW run for all monitors located
within the NY

- NJ

- CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area.

Table 4.1: 2009 Modeled PM 2.5 Design Values for the
NY

- N J

- CT PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area (Bold Type indicates Values over the Annual Standard of 15.0 μg/m 3 )21 Site ID Monitoring Site Name State Name Average Annual Baseline Design
Value (DV B

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 ) Projected 2009 Annual Design
Value (DV F

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 )

90010010 Br idgeport

- 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 Con necticut 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 Washin gton 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 14.222 Site ID Monitoring Site Name State Name Average Annual Baseline Design
Value (DV B

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 ) Projected 2009 Annual Design
Value (DV F

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 )

360050083 Botanical Gardens New York 13.8 12.4

360050110 East 156 Street New York 14.7 13.3

360470052 PS 314

- 60t h 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

360 610056 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 N ew 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

36085006 7 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/m 3 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 ran ge of values defined in the PM 2.5 modeling guidance as 14.5 μg/m 3 through 15.5 μg/m 3

. 9

9 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models an d Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , 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 PM 2.5 modeling results using the 2009 BOTW run for all monitors
located within the PA

- NJ

- DE PM 2.5 nonattainment area.

Table 4.2: 2009 Mode led PM 2.5 Design Values for the
PA

- NJ

- DE PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area (Bold Type indicates Values over the Annual Standard of 15.0 μg/m 3 )

Site ID Monitoring Site Name State Name Average Annual Baseline Design Value (DV B

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 ) Projected 2009 Annual Desi gn

Value (DV F

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 )

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 Pen nsauken 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 11.424 Site ID Monitoring Site Name State Name Average Annual Baseline Design Value (DV B

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 ) Projected 2009 Annual Desi gn

Value (DV F

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 )

421010136 Philadelphia

- Southwest (Elm) Pennsylvania 14.5 12.6

As can be seen from this table, all s ites in the PA

- NJ

- DE PM 2.5 nonattainment area are projected to be below the annual fine particulate standard of 15.0 μg/m 3 and below the weight of evidence range of values.

New Jersey used a multi

- analysis and weight

- of

- evidence (WOE) approach to suppor t 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 me asured from 2000 to 2006 at monitoring sites in both the PA

- NJ

DE and the NY

- NJ

- CT PM 2.5 nonattainment areas showed declining ambient PM 2.5 concentrations

· Technical information from a New York State weight

- of

- evidence presentation concerning the PS59 mon itoring 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 PM 2.5 being above the level of the NAAQS at the PS59 monitor

· Additional measures f rom 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 likel y lead to PM 2.5 concentration below the 2009 modeled design values and support New Jersey’s demonstration of attainment of the
PM 2.5 NAAQS in its two multistate nonattainment areas

As a result of this WOE review, New Jersey concluded that the State of Ne w Jersey, and the New Jersey associated nonattainment areas will attain the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS by the required
2010 attainment date.

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

- 2009,
2008

- 2010, and 2009

- 2011 are a vailable for air monitors in both NJ

- associated PM 2.5 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 1 5, 2010 finalizing that the NY

NJ

- CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area had attained the PM 2.5 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 ha d reviewed ambient air monitoring data for
PM 2.5 consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50 and recorded in the EPA Air25 Quality System (AQS) database. The 3

- year averages of the annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations are less than the NAAQS of 15.0 ug/m3. Table 5 shows the design values by county for the NY

NJ

- CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS for the NY

- NJ

- CT monitors in Micrograms per C ubic Meter (ug/m 3 ). The standard for the 1997 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS is 15.0 μg/m 3

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 requir ement. Note: The air monitor at the Newark Willis Center station in Essex County was discontinued on July 24, 2008 due to an unexpe cted 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 fre quency in one quarter.

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

- NJ

- DE PM 2.5 nonattainment area had attained the 1997 PM 2.5 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 ave rages of the
annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations are less than the NAAQS of 15.0 ug/m3. Table 6 shows the design values by county for the PA

- NJ

- DE PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS for the PA

- NJ

- DE monitors in Micrograms per Cubic Meter (ug/m 3 ). The standard for the 1997 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS is 15.0 μg/m 3

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

EPA proposes to find that the attainment demonstration modeling to be acceptable. New Jersey has followed EPA’s modeling guidance, and demonstrated through modeling and the weight

- of

evidence pro cess that the area would reach attainment by April 5, 2010

.

D.Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

The PM 2.5 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 bey ond 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 th ose 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. Reasonabl y 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 practicabl e (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 q uality 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 R ACT in a PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 emissions and all of the area’s
attainme nt plan precursors. 40 CFR section 51.1002 (c); 72 FR 20586 at 20589

- 97. Consistent with the guidance provided for the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule, a state initially must evaluate
RACM/RACT for sources that emit direct PM 2.5 , SO 2 , and NOx. A state may e stablish 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 precursor s for PM 2.5 , 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 appropriat e demonstration that such emissions need to be regulated for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS in the specific area.

For PM 2.5 attainment plans, the PM 2.5 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 developme nt. 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule, RACT and RACM are those reasonably available measures that contribute to attain ment as expeditiously as practicable in the specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR section 51.1010; 72 FR
20586 at 20612.

Specifically, the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule requires that attainment plans include the list of
measures that a state considered and inf ormation 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 parti cular 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 technologica l 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 PM 2.5 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 enforceabl e form as part of a state’s attainment plan for the area. 72 FR 20586 at 20614.28 Guidance provided in the PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 a nalysis 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 PM 2.5 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 th e initial five years from designation as a nonattainment area for the
1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

A more comprehensive discussion of the RACT/RACM requirement for PM 2.5 attainment plans and EPA’s guidance for it can be found in the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule preamb le. 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 tha t it would be appropriate to evaluate sources of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , 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 To gether " (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 commenc ed 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
red uce 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 inclu ded technical feasibility, economic feasibility, environmental benefits, and implementation feasibility. The air quality workgroups compiled their recommendations into reports that are available at29 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 qual ity 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 fac ility 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 recommen dations 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

- e ffectiveness, 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 cons ideration 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 w hite papers were then used to further inform the decision for determining RACT and RACM control measures.

b. PM 2.5 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 P M 2.5 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 total30 stationary source emissions statewide for PM10 and SO2, respective ly. 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 Co ntrol 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 eva luated 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 redu ctions 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 Ai r Fine Particle Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. NJDEP focused its PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5

. Since facilities did not report PM 2.5 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 emi ssion 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 con trols:

- 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 feasibil ity 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 reductio ns, 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 ta rgeted 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 revision31 was approved by EPA on May 15, 2009 (74 FR 22837). New Jersey adopted all of the rules
list ed 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 PM 2.5 RACT

Source Categories Targeted Pollutants Affected Rules

NO
x VOC SO 2 PM 2.5
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, Facility

Specific 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. PM 2.5 RACM

New Jersey performed a RACM analysis to determine if there were c ontrol 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 measu res that do not cause “substantial widespread and long

term 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 PM 2.5 RACM analysis submitted with the April 1, 2009 SIP submission, New Jersey
focu sed its RACM evaluation on direct PM 2.5 emissions and SO 2 . 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 attainme nt plan precursor for PM 2.5 as well as ozone, the 8 hour ozone RACM analysis was proposed for the
PM 2.5 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 Transporta tion (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 be nefit, 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 wer e rated “ high”, and are listed in table 8 below:

Table 8: Potential New Jersey PM 2.5 TCM RACM

Measure Description

Retrofit Construction Equipment Twenty percent of the construction equipment used on state projects
must use a combination of retrofit tech nology 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 wou ld 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 pr oduce 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 meas ure 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 Installation s 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 plaza s 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 Veh icle 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 m odel 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 fo r 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 Jer sey PM 2.5 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, throug h 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

woo d 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 requi rements 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 updat e 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 provid ing funds to offset the purchase of electric mowers36 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 PM 2.5 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, Sulf ur in Fuels rule, on January 3, 2012 as part of EPA’s approval of the New Jersey Regional Haze SIP 10 . 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, 201 4 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. N ew Jersey estimated 11 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 Nort hern and Southern New Jersey PM 2.5 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
need ed 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 o zone 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 previo usly, the most current monitoring data for the Northern and Southern New Jersey
PM 2.5 nonattainment areas indicates that the areas are attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s guidance for the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule recommended that if an area was predicte d 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 PM 2.5 nonattainment areas are now attaining the standards, EPA proposes to conclude that the attainment plan meets the RACT/RACM requirements of the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule, and that the level of control in the State’s attainment plan constitutes RACM/RACT for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Because the
PM 2.5 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 defin ition RACT/RACM for these areas for this purpose.

New Jersey’s demonstration for attaining the 1997 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 RACT.

F. Contingency Measures

I n accordance with section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule requires that
PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Attainment Contingency Measures

New Jersey Contingency
Measures Targeted Pollutants Affected Rules

NO
x VOC SO 2 PM 2.5

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 Die sel 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, 19.1338 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 Stat e rules listed in Table 10 into the SIP during previous agency actions 12

.

As noted in section III of this TSD, EPA has finalized the determination that the NY

- NJ

- CT
PM 2.5 nonattainment area had attained the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, based on complete, quality

assured, quality controlled, certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007

- 2009 monitoring period. EPA has also finalized the determination that the PA

- NJ

- DE PM 2.5 nonattainment area had attained the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, based on complete, quality

- as sured, 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 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule, areas that attained the NAAQS by the attainment date are considered to
have satisfied th e 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 PM 2.5 nonattainment area
and the PA

- NJ

- DE PM 2.5 nonattainment area have attained by the applicable attainment da te, contingency measures submitted by New Jersey are no longer necessary to meet RFP requirements or attain the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date, and further EPA action is unnecessary. Regardless of this determination, New Jersey has already adopt ed 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 co ntribute 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 ap proval 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 82 00 (February 13, 2008), 74 FR 17781 (April 17, 2009), 75 FR 45483 (August 3, 2010)39 and transportation agencies, EPA, an d 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 a nd 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
PM 2.5 nonattainment areas in New Jersey. The Del aware 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 P M 2.5 nonattainment area.

Because conformity is determined on a nonattainment area basis within a state, New Jersey established budgets for direct PM 2.5 and NO X (a PM 2.5 precursor) for these three combined counties. DVRPC would use these budgets to satis fy conformity requirements within the Southern New Jersey PM 2.5 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 Planni ng Authority (NJTPA) that lie within the Northern New Jersey PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 and NO X 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 PM 2.5 precursors (VOC, S O 2 , and NH 3 ) 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NO
x
Northern New Jersey North Jers ey Transportation Planning Authority 842 44,321

Northern New Jersey Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (Mercer County only) 105 5,32340 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 Not ice 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 ult imately 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 calculate d 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 transpor tation 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,
201 0); 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 Conformi ty, 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 im pact 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 tran sportation 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 c onformity 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 Fede ral Transit Administration offices to determine an appropriate course of action to address this type of situation if it is expected to41 occur. If New Jersey chooses to revise its PM 2.5 attainment plan, it should consult Question 7 of the December 2009 Poli cy 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 el ements 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 i nventories.

EPA has determined that the SIP meets the applicable requirements of the CAA, as described in
the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule. Specifically, EPA has determined that New Jersey’s SIP
includes an attainment demonstration and adopted state regu lations and programs needed to support a determination that the Northern New Jersey PM 2.5 nonattainment area and the Southern New Jersey PM 2.5 nonattainment area have attained the NAAQS by the April 2010 deadline.