1.0 REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURE (RACM)
ANALYSIS

New Jersey reviewed control measures that if implemented, could help alleviate its Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) nonattainment problem. The measures would need to be reasonably available and advance the a ttainment date for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by at least one year. This appendix provides an analysis of both potential transportation control measures (TCMs) for onroad mobile sources and potential non-TCM control m easures for point, area, onroad and nonroad source categories.

In accordance with 42 U.S.C . §7502(c)(1) (Section 172(c)(1 ) of the Clean Air Act), states, as part of their effo rt to attain the NAAQS, are re quired to implement all RACMs as expeditiously as practicable. Sp ecifically, the Clean Air Act states:

“In general – such plan provisions sha ll provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as pr acticable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of r easonably available control technology) and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality
standards.”

1.1 What is a RACM?

A Reasonably Available Control Measure, or RACM, is defined by the USEPA as any potential control measure for application to point 1 , area, onroad and nonroad emission source categories that meets the following criteria:

• The control measure is technologically feasible

• The control measure is economically feasible

• The control measure does not cause “s ubstantial widespread and long-term adverse impacts”

• The control measure is not “absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable”

• The control measures, if considered co llectively, could adva nce the attainment date by at least one year

Each of these criteria is more fully discussed in Section 1.2.1

1 RACM applies only to those point sources not already addressed as part of the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) analysis. The USEPA’s PM 2.5 Implementation Rule (72 Fed. Reg. 20586 (April 25, 2007)) considers RACT a part of RACM, and not an independent requirement, which is how RACT is considered in the Ozone Implementation Rule (70 Fed. Reg. 71611 – 705 (November 29, 2005)). However, New Jersey is conducting these two analyses separately, consistent with the approach used to address RACT and RACM requirements for 8-hour ozon e. New Jersey’s separate RACT analysis for PM 2.5 is contained in Appendix A7.2 1.1.1 USEPA RACM Requirements

In its Final Rule to implement the fine pa rticle National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 2 the USEPA established the fo llowing requirements for RACM:

(a) For each PM 2.5 nonattanment area, the State sh all submit with the attainment demonstration, a SIP revision demonstr ating that it has adopted all RACM (including reasonably available contro l technology (RACT )) necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements. The SI P revision shall contai n the list of the potential measures considered by the state, and information and analysis sufficient to support the state’s judgme nt that it has adopted a ll RACM, (including RACT). (b) In determining whether a particular emission reduction measure or set of measures must be adopted as RACM under section 172(c)(1) of the Act, the state must consider the cumulative impact of implementing the available measures.
Potential measures that are reasonabl y available considering technical and economic feasibility must be adopted as RACM if, considered collectively, they
would advance the attainment date by one year or more.

Because New Jersey can demonstrate that both its 1997 annual PM 2.5 nonattainment areas will attain by their required attainment dates (April 5, 2010), no RFP milestones are required. 3 As such, RACM analysis is only needed to demonstrate advancement of the
attainment date.

1.2 PM 2.5 RACM Analysis (by precursor)

The USEPA requires that states address not only direct PM 2.5 , but also the gaseous precursors to the formation of PM 2.5 in their RACM analysis. 4 The main precursor gases associated with fine particle formation are SO 2 and NO
x , and to a lesser extent, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia. 5 However, as discussed in Chapter 3, the USEPA requires that RACM analysis only address the following PM 2.5 precursors:

- Direct emissions of PM 2.5

- SO 2

- NO
x , unless a state makes a finding that NO
x emissions from sources in the state do not significantly contribute to the PM 2.5 problem in a given nonattainment area.

The USEPA generally presumes that a RACM analysis does not need to address
ammonia and/or VOC unless the state or US EPA determines that ammonia and/or VOC significantly contribute to the PM 2.5 problem in a given nonattainment area, and thus
finds that control of ammonia and/ or VOC would help address the PM 2.5 problem.

2 72 Fed. Reg. 20666, §51.1010 (April 25, 2007).

3 72 Fed. Reg. 20633 (April 25, 2007).

4 72 Fed. Reg. 20629 (April 25, 2007).

5 72 Fed. Reg. 20589 (April 25, 2007).3 Therefore this PM 2.5 RACM analysis reviewed potential control measures that addressed
direct PM 2.5 , SO 2 and NO
x .

NO
x measures were reviewed in the 8-hour ozone RACM analysis, 6 and this analysis satisfies the requirement to address NO
x as a precursor to the formation of PM 2.5 in the
PM 2.5 RACM analysis. New Jersey’s 8-hour ozone RACM analysis is included in Attachment A1 to this appendix. In addition, NO
x measures included in the USEPA’s list of potential control measures 7 were reviewed since this li st was provided to the states after they had already submitted their 8- hour ozone RACM analysis. A VOC RACM analysis was completed for 8-hour ozone (submitted to the USEPA on October 29, 2007),
and concluded that no reasonable measures we re available for implementation to advance
8-hour ozone attainment date.

1.2.1 Methodology

Potential control measures for mobile (bot h onroad and nonroad), stationary area, and stationary point (not already subject to PM 2.5 RACT analysis) emission source categories were evaluated using the following criteria: The control measure is technologically feasible, economically feasible, does not cau se “substantial widesp read and long-term adverse impacts,” is not “absurd, unenforceab le, or impracticable,” and the control measures, if considered collectively, could a dvance the attainment date by at least one

year.

The New Jersey Department of Transporta tion (NJDOT) conducted the RACM analysis for onroad mobile Transportation Control M easures (TCMs). The remainder of this
section discusses the evaluation cr iteria used for these analyses.

1. Technological Feasibility – This criterion is an evaluatio n of the following to determine feasibility of timely implementation:

• Relevant technology must exist or be r easonably expected to exist within the schedule allotted, be sufficien tly available, and be appl ied to achieve a stated result. For transportation control meas ures, this item includes technological changes to vehicles, fuels, necessary in frastructure and similar considerations

2. Economic Feasibility – This criterion considers an evalua tion of the following to determine feasibility of timely implementation:

• The cost of reducing emissions (i.e., cost per ton of emission reduced, cost per ton of emission reduced on high ozone da ys, capital costs and operating costs.
The costs associated with a measure must be justifiable relative to benefits, and

6 NJDEP. Chapter 7 of “The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard - 8-Hour Ozone Attainment De monstration, Final.” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. October 29, 2007.

7 The USEPA’s list of potential control measures for PM 2.5 and Precursors is available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/measures/pm_control_measures_t ables_ver1.pdf (accesse d November 28, 2007).4 compare favorably with other potential em issions control measures (of all types on all emissions sources). Operating cost s include both direct or variable costs
and indirect or fixed costs.

• No fixed $/ton was considered for reas onableness in this analysis; instead measures were justified on a case by case basis.

• For some measures, feasibility depends on availability of f unding and resources.

3. Other considerations including measures that do not cause “substantial widespread and long-term adverse impacts” and measures that are not “absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable ” – These criteria were evaluated based on the following to determine feasibility of implementation:

• Considerations such as disruption of fu el supplies, discrimination among various population groups, critical reduction in mobility, and other similar concerns.

• Other adverse environmental impacts such as water pollution, waste disposal issues and energy requirements must be minimized.

• Must be legally enforceable and legal under Federal and state law.

• Must be practical, realistic, and have a strong potential to achieve estimated
emissions reductions.

• Must be capable of being implemented and producing the an ticipated emissions reductions in the required timeframe. This includes consideration of the schedule for planning, regulatory action, implementa tion and time to achieve the targeted
results.

4. Advancement of the Attainment Date – This criterion requires that selected measures advance the attainment date by at least one year. The USEPA requires that states conduct an air quality modeling analysis to determine the attainment date of identified potential control measures. 8 The modeling analysis would be conducted for the year 2009. In order to advance the attainment by one year, the potential RACM measures would have to be implemented by 2008.

8 72 Fed. Reg. 20613 (April 25, 2007).5 1.2.2 Potential Control Measure Evaluation for Non-Transportation Control
Measures

Step 1 - Identification of Potential Control Measures

A list of 628 potential non-transportation c ontrol measures was compiled through review of various sources, including the USEPA, othe r states, Regional Pl anning Organizations (RPOs), New Jersey State Organizations, and existing NJDEP documents.

Measures that addressed a top 15 direct PM 2.5 or SO 2 emitting category in the State 2002 base year inventory or the 2009 projected regional inventor y were included in this analysis. Measures that ha d the potential to achieve high emission reductions regardless of whether or not they addre ssed a top inventory category (eit her State or regional) were also included in the analys is. The top 15 direct PM 2.5 and SO 2 emitting categories in the New Jersey 2002 Periodic Emission Invent ory and the 2009 Regional inventory are shown in Figures B1, B2, B3 and B4.

Potential PM 2.5 RACT measures were deleted from the list of measures to be evaluated in the RACM analysis because these measures are addressed in the PM 2.5 RACT analysis (see Appendix A7), and TCMs were separated out because the NJDOT conducted the
PM 2.5 TCM analysis.

Any measures that are already in place in New Jersey or are more st ringently addressed at
the Federal level were not included in the analysis. Measures whose potential emission reduction benefits were not qua ntifiable and measures that had no net emission reduction benefit in New Jersey were also excluded from the analysis and identical measures were
combined.6 Figure A1: 2002 New Jersey PM 2.5 (with Fugitive Dust*) Emission Inventory Top 15 by SCC

9,363 2,226 2,100 1,005 887 836 823 783 758 605 530 336 334 328 301

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION RESTAURANT OPERATIONS HEAVY DUTY DIESEL VEHICLES EXTERNAL COMBUSTION - ELECTRIC BOILER BITUMINOUS COAL MISC. WILDFIRE RESIDENT IAL NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION OUTBOARD PLEASURE CRAFT - 2 STROKE, GASOLINE COMMERCIAL MARINE PAVED ROADS - (F) LIGHT DUTY GAS VEHICLE COMMERCIAL NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION

LIGHT DUTY GASOLINE TRUCK (<6K lbs.) MANAGED BURNING PERSONAL WAT ER CRAFT - 2 STROKE, GASOLINE RESIDENTIAL DISTILLAT E OIL COMBUSTION

Tons per Year Area

Point

OnRoad

N onRoad

Figure A2: 2002 New Jersey SO 2 Emission Inventory Top 15 by SCC

32,595 16,260 11,444 6,484 3,758 2,035 1,917 1,845 1,593 1,304 1,168 774 657 610 569

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 EXTERNAL COMBUSTION - ELECTRIC BOILER BIT UMI NOUS COAL MISC. EXTERNAL COMBUSTION - ELECTRIC BOILER PULVERIZED BITUMI NOUS COAL COMMERCIAL MARINE RESIDENTIAL DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES - FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS LIGHT DUTY GAS VEHICLE COMMERCIAL DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES - CHEMICAL MANUFACT URING SULFURIC ACID HEAVY DUTY DIESEL VEHICLE LIGHT DUTY GASOLINE TRUCK (<6K LBS.) EXTERNAL COMBUSTION - ELECTRIC BOILER RESIDUAL GRADE 6 OIL COMMERCIAL KEROSENE OIL COMBUSTION INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES - PET ROLEUM INDUST RY PROCESS HEATERS

EXTERNAL COMBUSTION - ELECTRIC BOILER NATURAL GAS MISC. Light Duty Gasoline T ruck (>6K lbs. <8.5K lbs.)

Tons per Year Area

Point

OnRoad

N onRoad

12/6/077 Figure A3: 2009 MANE-VU Region PM 2.5 Inventory Top 15

105,229 47,979 37,367 25,470 25,012 18,931 17,331 14,452 13,090 10,149 9,359 8,056 7,831 7,822 7,128

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Wood Mobile Sources - Unpaved Roads

Mobile Sources - Paved Roads Industrial Processes - Construction Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery - Open burning Miscellaneous Area Sources - Agricultural production Mobile Sources - Off-highway Diesel Industrial Processes - Food and Kindred Products Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Coal External Combustion Boilers - Industrial Industrial Processes - Mining and Quarrying Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Natural Gas Industrial Processes - Mineral Products Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Distillate Oil

Mobile Sources - Off-highway vehicle gasoline

Tons per Year Area

Point

OnRoad

N onRoad

Figure A4: 2009 MANE-VU Region SO 2 Emission Inventory Top 15

165,328 115,253 88,325 56,587 34,643 26,088 22,731 20,414 18,716 7,974 6,684 5,554 4,750 4,709 4,163

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Distillate Oil External Combustion Boilers - Industrial Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Coal

Industrial Processes - Mineral Products Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Residual Oil

Mobile Sources - Commercial Marine Vessels Mobile Sources - Off-highway Diesel Internal Combustion Engines - Industrial Industrial Processes - Metal Production Industrial Processes - Petroleum Industry Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Kerosene Waste Disposal - Solid Waste Disposal Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Wood

Industrial Processes - In-process Fuel Use Mobile Sources - Railroad Equipment

Tons per Year Area

Point

OnRoad

N onRoad

For a number of years, it has been recogni zed that fugitive dust emission inventories, when used in air quality models , substantially over-estimate PM 2.5 ambient crustal emissions when compared to crustal material found in ambient samples. Various efforts 12/6/078 which include work done by the Desert Research Institute (DRI) and USEPA, 9 the AP-42 study, 10 and NESCAUM’s Pilot Study 11 reached a consensus opinion that over-estimates in the fugitive dust categories (i.e. pave d and unpaved roads, dust from highway, commercial and residential construction, agricultural tilling, windblown dust from agricultural and other exposed land, quarrying, and other earth moving) need correction to compensate for inaccuracies in the invent ories. Fugitive dust emissions in Figure A1 are adjusted to correct for this over-estimate.

NJDEP Workgroup White Paper Measures

In June of 2005, the NJDEP launched its “Re ducing Air Pollution Together Initiative” designed to open a dialogue be tween the NJDEP and interested and affected parties about reducing emissions in order to improve air qu ality in New Jersey. As part of this Initiative, six workgroups were formed to fo cus on different sources of emissions (i.e., emissions from diesel vehicles, gasoline cars and trucks, homes and restaurants, stationary combustion sources , processes and consumer products, and non-automobile gasoline engines) that contributed to New Jersey’s key air quality problems and to recommend control strategies to reduce thes e emissions. These workgroups developed and submitted to the Department a total of 250 potential control measures
recommendations to the NJDEP for considerat ion, and ranked the measures from highest to lowest potential based on the measures’ environmental benefits, technical feasibility, implementation feasibility, economic feasibilit y, social benefits/Environmental Justice,
and ease of enforcement. More informa tion on the NJDEP’s “Reducing Air Pollution Together Initiative” can be f ound on the NJDEP’s website at http://www.nj.gov/dep/airworkgroups/index.html.

After the workgroup reports were submitte d, the 250 workgroup recommended measures were further evaluated by NJDEP and re-r anked using a common scale (High, Medium, Low, and Not Ranked) so that every measur e could be compared equally. The NJDEP Air Quality Management Team determined which of the 250 workgroup recommended strategies should be further evaluated for possi ble inclusion in the SIP and/or considered further for implementation. As a result of these discussions, sixty draft white papers addressing 60 measures were developed by the NJDEP staff, and presented to the public
for their review and consideration. 12

The majority of the white papers were written for VOC and NO
x measures. Ten of the white paper measures were for PM 2.5 and/or SO 2 measures. Two of the ten white papers

9 A Conceptual Model to adjust Fugitive Dust Emissions to Account for Near Source Particle Removal in Grid Model Application, Thompson G. Pace, USEPA 8/22/2003 available form USEPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/.

10 Analysis of Fine Particulate Matter Near Urban Roadways”, Balogh, Larson, and Mannering,Transportation Research Record 1416, page 25.

11 Spatial and Temporal Assessment of Mobile Source Aerosol Indicator During Winter in Boston, Ma.: A Pilot Study; Allen and Johnson, April, 2003.

12 A complete list of white papers, as well as links to these white papers, can be found at http://www.nj.gov/dep/airw orkgroups/docs/wp_ summary_table_we b_2007.xls (Accessed November 28, 2007).9 were RACT measures and the remaining eigh t were fully evaluated according to the RACM criteria. The concepts from all eight white paper measures that were evaluated advanced to the final stage of the analysis (a dvance the attainment da te). The eight white paper measures are listed below:

- Increasing the Rate of Small Engine Tur novers and Portable Fuel Container Turnovers through the Use of Incentive-Based Initiatives - Regional Sulfur Fuel Oil Controls - Wood Stove and Fireplace Insert Change-out Programs - A Multi-Stage Approach to Outdoor Wood Burning Equipment - A Multi-Stage Approach for Wood Burning Issues at the Local Level - Increasing Public Relations/Outreach/E ducation and Extending BPU Programs that Address Energy-Efficiency and Renewable Energy
- Restaurant Controls - Require Owners of Wood Burning Fireplaces to Change-over to Natural Gas Fireplaces and Allow Only Natural Gas Fireplaces in New Construction

NO
x measures from 8-hour ozone RACM analysis

There were five NO
x measures that made it to the fina l step of the in the 8-hour ozone RACM analysis (advance the ozone attainment date). Two of these measures overlapped with the workgroup white paper measures. Th ree were added to the non-TCM measures
for PM 2.5 RACM analysis. One of these measures advanced to the final stage of the analysis (advance the attainment date) (see “Step II – RACM Criteria Analysis” section).

Step II – RACM Criteria Analysis

After this careful review of the init ial 628 non-TCM control measures, 60 non-TCM
control measures advanced to Step II of the analysis.

Technological Feasibility, Economic Feas ibility and Other Local Considerations :

The 60 potential non-TCM control measures were analyzed according to the RACM
criteria discussed in Section 1.2.1 for techno logical feasibility, ec onomic feasibility and other local considerations. The analysis fo r these criteria was done simultaneously on all
60 measures. If sufficient information was not available for a determination to be made under any criteria, an “N/A” de termination was made, and the measure was evaluated for the remaining criteria. In addition, if a m easure failed any of the criteria, no further
evaluation was conducted on that measure. Ta ble A2.1 in Attachment A2 lists these 60
measures and the determinations for each measure.

A total of 15 viable non-TCM m easures listed in Table A1 ad vanced to the final stage of the analysis (advance the attainment date).10 Table A1 : List of 15 Potential Non-TCM RACMs

Measure Name

Area Voluntary wood stove and firepl ace retrofit/change-out programs Mandatory wood stove and firepl ace retrofit/change-out programs

Amend the Air Pollution control Act to a llow counties to regu late outdoor wood
Establish moratorium throug h Governor's Executive Order or Legislation on sale and distribution of new OWBs until implementation of USEPA's regulations Establish provisions on minimum chimney he ight and distances to houses/property

lines for outdoor wood boilers Commitment to adopt State rules in the absence of Federal action Implement standards for chain driven charbroilers Energy conservation and "green building" for residential and commercial building Enhance New Jersey's open burning permit requirements PM-efficient units for street sweeping New Jersey to lower the Sulfur content in Fuel Oil

OnRoad New Jersey to update and strength en existing opacity requirements

NonRoad Emission Testing and repair/maintenance program for nonroad heavy duty equipment Reduce ship speeds near the coast Voluntary Lawn Mower Replacement Program

1.2.3 NJDOT Potential Control Measure Analysis for Transportation Control
Measures and Other Onroad Mobile Measures

TCMs are transportation strategies specific to onroad mobile sources, which reduce emissions by reducing the number and/or length of vehicle trips and/ or improve traffic flow. After the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, New Jersey made a
full-scale commitment to TCMs. 13 The State’s transportation capital program continues to stress transit projects, system pres ervation, and systems management over the provision of new highway capacity. The NJ DOT is committed to continue the support and implementation of air quality-friendly transportation projects programs. The
remainder of this section outlines the NJDOT’s evaluation of PM 2.5 -related TCMs for RACM purposes.

13 The State included 134 TCMs in the original 15% Rate of Progress SIP in 1993. While New Jersey has since opted not to include TCMs in the SIP, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) has continued to commit to the support and implementation of air quality friendly transportation projects and

programs.11 Step I – Evaluation Criteria for Pote ntial Transportation Control Measures

Twenty-six (26) TCMs were identified by NJDO T, in consultation with the NJDEP, for
consideration in this RACM evaluation. Deta iled summaries of each of the 26 measures identified by NJDOT are located in Attachment A3.

Step II – Identification of Potential Transportation Control Measures

The 26 onroad TCMs were evaluated by the NJDOT based on the criteria outlined in
Section 1.2.1. These criteria include technol ogical and economic f easibility, other local considerations (measures that do not cause “substantial widesp read and long-term adverse impact” and measures that are not “absurd, unenforceable, and impracticable”),
and advancement of the attainment date. Emissions reductions must be sufficient to
advance the attainment date in each PM 2.5 nonattainment area from 2010 to 2009, meaning that the measures must be in place by 2008 to achieve reductions in
2008.

The NJDOT also performed a political feasibility analysis on the 26 measures and ranked the measures as “high,” “medium,” or “low.” The political feasibility analysis is located
in Attachment A4. The NJDEP evaluated th e rationale for measur es that were ranked “medium” or “low” for political feasibil ity by NJDOT against the RACM criteria
described in Section 1.2.1. There were 11 m easures that ranked “high” for political feasibility. Many of the potential TCMs are al ready in place and therefore not considered a RACM. Only one of the 11 measures advanced to the final stage of the RACM analysis. This meas ure is listed below

School Bus Replacement – All model year 2002 and older bu ses will be replaced with model year 2007 diesel buses.12 1.3 Potential Measures Identified

A total of 16 measures (one TCM and 15 N on-TCM) passed the tec hnological feasibility, economic feasibility and “other local consider ations” RACM criteria, as shown in Figure B5).

Figure B5: Identification of Potential Control Measures

15 Non-TCM Measures

pass technological, economic, other local
considerations criteria TO

612 Non TCM Measures 5 NOx Measures from
8- hr O 3 RACM 10 PM Specific Workgroup White Paper
Measures Discuss Strategies for possible SIP Inclusion 26 TCMs

49 Measures Pass pre screening and Advance to
RACM Anal y sis 8 White Paper Measures
Advance to RACM Analysis

60 Non-TCM Measures
Advance to RACM Analysis 2 NOx Measures from 8-
hr O 3 RACM Overlap with White Paper Measures (three additional
Measure Advance to

RACM Analysis 1 TCM
Pass Technological, economic, other
local
considerations
criteria 628 Original Potential

Control Measures13 1.4 Advancement of Attainment Date

The 16 TCMs and non-TCMs that passed all pr eviously discussed (technological, economic, other local consider ations) RACM criteria were analyzed to determine whether or not they had the potential to adva nce the attainment date. NJDEP determined
that none of these 16 measures could be implemented by 2008, and therefore would not achieve any reduction benefits in 2008. As a result, these measures, alone or collectively,
would not advance the attainment date. No additional modeling was needed (per USEPA requirement, see Section § 51.1007 in 72 Fed. Reg. 20585 (April 25, 2007)) to make this determination).

1.5 RACM Conclusion

New Jersey reviewed over 600 potential control measures to determine if these measures should be implemented to assist with attaini ng the health standard and also help improve the air quality in New Jersey. The control measures were also evaluated based on the
RACM criteria discussed in Section 1.2.1 a nd it was determined that none could be implemented by 2008 in order to provide emissi on benefits by 2009. Therefore, none of the potential control measures are consider ed RACM for the purposes of the 1997 annual
PM 2.5 NAAQS and it is unnecessary to include a ny of these measures in the State’s 1997
annual PM 2.5 attainment plan.

Even though none of these potential measures could be implemented by 2008, they include some promising measures that New Je rsey considered implementing to assist in attaining the health standards and for future st rategies. In addition, New Jersey is already addressing some of the source categories ad dressed by these measures, as well as other significant contributing sources to reduce PM 2.5 emissions. The remainder of this Section discusses the most promising of these source categories and wh at New Jersey is currently doing and/or plans to do to address these sources in the future.

a. Open burning/Outdoor wood burning – Smoke Management Plans

New Jersey already has a regula tion in place to control emi ssions from open burning at N.J.A.C. 7:27-2, Control and Prohibition of Open Burning 14 , and is considering changes to agricultural burning portion of these requi rements. This source category is also addressed in the “Smoke Management” S ection of the proposed Regional Haze SIP (including the agricultural and forestry sm oke management, prescribed burning, and agricultural management discus sions in that SIP proposal). 15

14 Available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqm/Sub%2002%20v1994-06-20.pdf (Accessed November 19, 2007).

15 The first regional haze air quality protection plan fo r New Jersey was proposed September 15, 2008 (see Chapter 1 for further details).14 b. Change-out programs

Control measures include wood stove and fi replace change-out programs, and lawn mower replacement programs. Financial in centives would be nece ssary to ensure a productive program. New Jersey would consid er implementing a change-out program in
the future if funds become available.

c. Control fugitive dust emissions

The New Jersey Municipal St ormwater Regulation program 16 requires the streets in the State to be swept on a regular basis. This measure also has air quality benefits by the removal of a source of fugitive dust such as dust from tire and break wear.

New Jersey also has standards that would reduce fugitive emissions from various sources such as tillage and construction. These st andards have been a dopted by NJDOT and New Jersey Department of Agriculture (NJD OA) under the “Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Standards: Standards for Dust Control.” 17,18

Control of fugitive dust at majo r industrial facilities throughout the State is a viable PM 2.5 RACT measure and will be addressed by a ne w rule expected to be proposed in 2009, in accordance with the New Jersey Administrativ e Procedures Act (A PA) (N.J.S.A. 52:14B1 et. Seq.) and the Air Pollution Control Act (APCA) (N.J.S.A. 26:2C-1 et seq.). For more information, see the PM 2.5 RACT analysis in Appendix A7.

d. Energy conservation and “green building”

New Jersey currently provides for rebates and other financial incentives to install energyefficiency measures in a home. The New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (NJDCA) has minimum design standards for so me appliances. The New Jersey Clean Energy Program (NJCEP) and the New Jers ey Energy Master Plan (NJEMP) are programs that encourage energy conservation.

e. Train engines

New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit) has vol untarily implemented an “Idling Reduction Policy” which says that there is no idling when the temperature is above zero degrees.

16 NJDEP. 2006 Annual Report summary on New Jersey ’s Stormwater Regulation program is available at http://www.state.nj.us /dep/dwq/pdf/2006msrpannu alreportlong.pdf (Accesse d November 19, 2007).

17 New Jersey Department of Transportation. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Standards (Approved January 18, 1989). Standards for Dust Control, pg 2-10-1.

18 New Jersey Department of Agriculture. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act Rules (July 1999)
N.J.A.C 2:90-1.15 f. Truck Stop Electrification

On October 20, 2004, the first Electrified Truc k Stop in New Jersey was opened at the Travel Centers of America truck stop in Paulsboro, Gloucester County, New Jersey. The Truck stop has ninety-eight truck electrificat ion bays equipped with IdleAire Service Modules. These modules mount on the cab's passenger window to provide heat, ventilation, air conditioning, power for the re frigeration unit and a ppliances as well as cable TV, telephone and Internet service. New Jersey encourages the use of this technology to reduce PM 2.5 emissions from diesel trucks. New Jersey opened another electrified truck stop with nine ty-two electrificati on bays at Petro Travel Center #382, in Bordentown, Burlington County, New Jersey on June 26, 2007. An electrified truck stop
at the Vince Lombardi Rest Area in Ridgefield, Bergen Count y, New Jersey, is scheduled to begin construction within the next six months . New Jersey also ha s an electrified truck stop with sixty-three bays at Travel Centers of America #006, in Columbia, Warren County, New Jersey, and is considering other locations for electrification, as well.

g. Idling Rule

New Jersey has revised its Idling Rule at N.J.A.C. 7:27-14.3 (Effective July 25, 2007) to remove the sleeper berth exemp tion no later than April 30, 2010.

h. Diesel Smoke Rule Changes

New Jersey currently has opacity requirements for periodic and roadside inspections of emissions of diesel vehicles. New Jersey is in the process of u pdating and strengthening the existing requirements and updating the Pass/Fail Standards for the periodic and roadside inspections.

i. Ports

New Jersey is working with the Port of Ne w York/New Jersey to develop a plan to reduce emissions, including fine particulate em issions. Some of these measures include replacing or upgrading all contai ner trucks that frequently vi sit the port such that they
meet or are cleaner than the USEPA 2007 onr oad emission standard, conduct targeted enforcement sweeps for idling and smoke vi olations, require clean construction and operations at Port fields a nd encourage clean partners, non-road equipment upgrade to newer models with lower emissions, and fu el switching from diesel to electricity.

j. Medium Duty Motor Vehicles

New Jersey is piloting an effort to review measures that would help control particulate emissions from Medium Duty Motor Vehi cle with a gross weight between 8,501 – 17,999 pounds.