Joe Martens 

Commissioner 

Department of Environmental Conservation 

Division of Air Resources 

NEW YORK 

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

 NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA 

CARBON MONOXIDE 

LIMITED MAINTENANCE PLAN 

FOR 2012 - 2022 

PROPOSED REVISION DECEMBER 2012 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Andrew M. Cuomo, GOVERNOR Joe Martens, COMMISSIONER
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

   
Table of Contents 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide 

1.2. New York Metropolitan Area Carbon Monoxide Air Quality History 

 

2.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN 

2.1 Requirements 

2.2 Carbon Monoxide Monitor Locations and Design Values 

2.3 Maintenance Demonstration 

3.0 EMISSION INVENTORY 

 3.1 Methodology 

 3.1.1 On-Road Methodology 

 3.1.2 Nonroad Methodology 

 3.1.3 NonPoint Source Methodology 

 3.1.4 Point Source Methodology 

 3.2 Emission Inventory Requirements 

 3.2.1 Winter-Day Inventory 

 

4.0 VERIFICATION OF CONTINUED ATTAINMENT 

5.0 CONTINGENCY MEASURES 

6.0 TRANSPORTATION AND GENERAL CONFORMITY 

7.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

8.0 CONCLUSIONS 

Appendices

 
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 NYMA Area 1-hour and 8-hour CO Design Values (in ppm) 

Table 2 NYSDEC Rule Effectiveness Matrix 

Table 3 2007 CO Emissions by County (Tons per Winter Day) 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Location of CO Ambient Air Quality Monitors 

LIST OF APPENDICES

A CO Design Values 2007-2011 

B EPA Guidance Document 

“Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas”. 

C New York State On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission Budget MOVES Technical 

Support Documentation 

D Technical Support Document for the Development of the 2007 Emission 

Inventory for Regional Air Quality Modeling in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region; 

ver. 3.3; January 23, 2012 

E Technical Support Document for the Development of the 2017/2020 Emission 

Inventories for Regional Air Quality Modeling in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic 

Region; ver. 3.3; January 23, 2012 

F Technical Support Document for the Development of the 2025 Emission 

Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region; ver. 3.3, rev. 

2; January 23, 2012 

G Public Notices 

H Responses to Comments 

I Sample Calculations for Nonpoint Sources 

 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic 

Act Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

AF Allocation Factor 

AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMV Commercial Marine Vessel 

CNG Compressed Natural Gas 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

DEC Department of Environmental Conservation 

DV Design Value 

DVMT Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled 

EDMS Emission Dispersion Modeling System 

EF Emission Factor 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

FG Factor Groups 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FR Federal Register 

GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 

HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System 

IM Inspection/Maintenance 

LDV Light Duty Vehicle 

LEV Low Emission Vehicle 

LMP Limited Maintenance Plan 

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas 

MOS Margin Of Safety 

MOVES Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NLEV National Low Emission Vehicle 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOx Nitrogen Oxide 

NPTS National Personal Transportation Survey 

NWS National Weather Service 

NYCRR New York Codes, Rules and Regulations 

NYMA New York Metropolitan Area 

NYS New York State 

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

NYSDOT New York State Department Of Transportation 

NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development 

Authority 

NYTEST New York Transient Emissions Short Test 

NYVIP New York Vehicle Inspection Program 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

OBD On-Board Diagnostics 
PM Particulate Matter 

PM2.5 Fine PM; Particulate Matter with an aerodynamic diameter ≤

2.5 micrometers 

PM10 Coarse PM; Particulate Matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter ≤ 10 micrometers 

ppm parts per million 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

QA Quality Assurance 

QC Quality Control 

RE Rule Effectiveness 

RVP Reid Vapor Pressure 

SAF Seasonal Adjustment Factor 

SEQR State Environmental Quality Review 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

TIP Transportation Improvement Program 

TSD Technical Support Document 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled 
Page 1 of 13

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide 

In accordance with section 109 of the Clean Air Act (Act), the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for several criteria pollutants, including carbon 

monoxide (CO). CO is a colorless, odorless gas, a poison by inhalation, and can 

cause asphyxiation. The dominant source of CO is incomplete combustion from 

motor vehicles. CO concentrations are most pronounced in the ambient air 

during winter months, when motor vehicles experience cold starts. 

The NAAQS for CO are established in section 50.8 of Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 50.8). There are two primary CO NAAQS; a 

one-hour standard of 35 parts per million (ppm) and a non-overlapping eight-hour 

average standard of 9 ppm. The one-hour NAAQS is exceeded when measured 

data equals 35.5 pm or greater, and the eight-hour NAAQS is exceeded when 

measured data equals 9.5 ppm or greater. An area is in violation of the NAAQS 

if it experiences more than one exceedance of any standard within a calendar 

year (one exceedance of both standards per year is allowed by the NAAQS). 

Data must be measured in accordance with the methodology established in 

Appendix C of 40 CFR 53. 

1.2 New York Metropolitan Area Carbon Monoxide Air Quality History 

On November 23, 1999, the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (DEC) submitted a proposed revision to the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) to the EPA. The submission was a CO redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the New York Metropolitan Area (NYMA). This request 

was to redesignate the New York portion of the New York – Northern New Jersey 

- Long Island CO nonattainment area from nonattainment to attainment of the CO 

NAAQS. EPA approved the redesignation request because the CO NAAQS was 

being met in New York and it met the redesignation requirements set forth in the 

Act. New York’s CO maintenance plan was approved by EPA because it 

provided for continued attainment of the CO NAAQS. 

EPA also approved the New York CO attainment demonstration that was 

submitted by DEC on November 15, 1992. This action provided for full approval 

of the New York State SIP for CO. Currently, there are no areas of New York 

State designated as nonattainment for the CO standards. 

EPA first set NAAQS for CO in 1971. For protection of both public health 

and welfare, EPA set an 8-hour primary standard at 9 ppm and a 1-hour primary 

standard at 35 ppm. In a review of the standards completed in 1985, EPA 

revoked the secondary standards (for public welfare) due to a lack of evidence of 

adverse effects on public welfare at or near ambient concentrations. The last 
Page 2 of 13

review of the CO NAAQS was completed in 1994 and EPA chose not to revise 

the standards at that time. On January 28, 2011, EPA proposed to retain the 

existing NAAQS for CO and on August 12, 2011 the decision became final. The 

existing primary standards are 9 ppm over an 8-hour period, and 35 ppm 

measured over 1 hour. EPA modified the ambient air monitoring requirements 

for CO by requiring CO monitors to be sited near roads in certain urban areas. 

EPA is requiring one CO monitor to be collocated with a “near-road” nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) monitor in urban areas having populations of 1 million or more. 

2.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN 

2.1 Requirements 

Section 175A of the Clean Air Act Amendments requires that a SIP for a 

former nonattainment area provide for continuing maintenance of the NAAQS. 

That maintenance SIP must provide contingency measures to assure that the 

State will promptly correct any violation of the standard that occurs after the 

redesignation of the area to attainment. The maintenance plan for nonclassfiable 

areas must include all four elements listed below: 

1. A demonstration that the national standard has been attained 

and will be maintained for at least ten years after redesignation; 

2. Provisions for continued air monitoring to verify the attainment 

status of the redesignated area; 

3. A demonstration to show that the proposed reductions in 

emissions will be enough to maintain the standard; and 

4. A contingency provision to correct any violations of the standard 

that might occur after the area is redesignated to attainment. 

In order to use the limited maintenance plan (LMP), design values (two 

years of monitoring data) must be at or below 85% of exceedance levels of the 

CO NAAQS. Additionally, the design value for the area must continue to be at or 

below 85% of exceedance levels of the CO NAAQS until the time of final EPA 

action or the redesignation. 

EPA’s guidance for limited maintenance plans is included in an October 6, 

1995 memorandum from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, Intergrated Policy and 

Strategies Group MD-15) entitled, “Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas.” This document is included in 

Appendix B of this proposed SIP revision. 

 
Page 3 of 13

2.2 Carbon Monoxide Monitor Locations and Design Values 

Figure 1 - Location of CO Ambient Air Quality Monitors in New York State 

CO design values are discussed in terms of the 8-hour CO NAAQS, 

rather than the 1-hour NAAQS, because the 8-hour NAAQS is typically the 

standard of concern. However, a 1-hour design value would be computed in the 

same manner. For 8-hour CO, the maximum and second maximum (nonoverlapping) 8-hour values at a site for the most recent 2 years of data are used 

to determine compliance with the NAAQS. DEC used the values from the 

Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) AMP450, "Quick Look", printout 

and chose the higher of the second highs as our design value for that site. All 

design values within the area are identified and the highest of those is used as 

the design value for the area. Note that, for each site, individual years of CO 

data are considered separately to determine the second maximum for each year 

- CO data are not combined from different years. The CO NAAQS requires that 

not more than one 8-hour average per year can exceed 9 ppm (greater than or 
Page 4 of 13

equal to 9.5 ppm to adjust for rounding). DEC evaluates attainment over a twoyear period. If an area has a design value greater that 9 ppm, it means there 

was a monitoring site where the second highest (non-overlapping) 8-hour 

average was greater than 9 ppm in at least one year. 

Table 1 contains CO design values for monitors in the NYMA for 2010-

2011. As can be seen in the table, the design values are well below the NAAQS 

for CO. 

Table 1 - NYMA Area 1-hour and 8-hour CO Design Values (in ppm) 

Site ID Name Year

1st 

max 

1 hr 

2nd 

max 

1 hr 

1st 

max 

8 hr 

2nd 

max 8 

hr 

1 hr 

design 

value 

8 hr 

design 

value 

36‐005‐0133 Pfizer Lab 2010 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.5 2.8 1.9

2011 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.3 3.0 2.3

 

36‐061‐0135 CCNY 2010 3.5 2.3 1.8 1.8 2.3 1.8

2011 3.1 2.7 2.0 1.6 2.7 1.8

 

36‐081‐0124 Queens College 2010 3.4 3.4 2.7 1.9 3.4 1.9

2011 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.4 3.4 1.9

 

 

2.3 Maintenance Demonstration 

The maintenance demonstration must demonstrate effective safeguards of 

the NAAQS are in place for at least 10 years following the redesignation showing 

that future year CO emissions will not exceed the level of the attainment year. 

To make this demonstration, DEC completed a Motor Vehicle Regional Analysis, 

to support the use of the LMP option for the maintenance demonstration. That 

analysis is described below. 

The following methodology was used to determine whether increased 

emissions from on-road mobile sources could, in the next 10 years, increase 

concentrations in the area and threaten the assumption of maintenance that 

underlies the LMP policy. This analysis is submitted in order to demonstrate that 

this area is eligible for the LMP option. 

 
Page 5 of 13

DEC used the following equation: 

DV + (VMTpi x DVmv) < MOS 

2.3 + (1.1645 x 1.45) < 7.65 

2.3 + (1.69) < 7.65 

3.99 < 7.65 

Where: 

DV = the area’s design value based on the most recent 2 years of quality 

assured data in ppm. The design value for the area is 2.3 ppm based on 

2011 monitoring data at the Pfizer Lab location (36-005-0133). 

VMTpi= the projected % increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) over the 

next 

10 years. The VMT growth rate (VMTpi) was developed based on a linear 

regression of Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) historical 

data for forecasting VMT prepared by the New York State Department of 

Transportation (NYSDOT). These projections employed HPMS data from 

1981 to 2007. The projected growth rate for the area is 16.45%

DVmv = motor vehicle design value based on on-road mobile portion of 

the attainment year inventory in ppm. The on-road portion is 63.12% of 

the attainment year inventory. The DVmv of 1.45 ppm was derived by 

multiplying DV by the percentage of the attainment year inventory 

represented by on-road mobile sources (2.3 multiplied by 0.6312). 

MOS = margin of safety for the relevant CO standard for a given area. 

With an 8 hour standard of 9 ppm, 85 percent of the exceedance level is 

7.65 ppm. 

Since 3.99 ppm is less than the margin of safety value of 7.65 ppm, the area 

passes the regional analysis criterion. 

3.0 EMISSION INVENTORY 

3.1 Methodology 

3.1.1 On-road Methodology 

The on-road component of the 2007 CO inventory includes an 

estimate of emissions from all motorized vehicles operated on public 
Page 6 of 13

roadways. All on-road mobile source emissions were estimated using 

EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model using locallydeveloped inputs for each of the 7 counties in the nonattainment area. 

These inputs include varying meteorological data, vehicle activity, fuel 

characteristics, and emissions control programs. 

“Base-year” inventory inputs were derived from 2007 data, where 

applicable, and reflect the programs and controls that were in effect in 

2007. Once all inputs were developed, DEC modeled the inventory, 

whether annual and/or daily, in accordance with EPA’s guidance "Using 

MOVES to Prepare Emission Inventories in State Implementation Plans 

and Transportation Conformity: Technical Guidance for MOVES2010, 

2010a and 2010b" (EPA-420-B-12-028, April 2012). More detailed 

descriptions of DEC’s methodologies for developing MOVES-specific 

inputs can be found in New York State On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission 

Budget MOVES Technical Support Document located in Appendix C. 

3.1.2 Nonroad Methodology 

New York State Nonroad Methodology for 2007 Emissions 

Estimates for Carbon Monoxide for the New York City Metropolitan Area 

for a Typical Winter Day 

Nonroad mobile source emissions are separated by four main 

categories. These include aircraft, commercial marine vessels, 

locomotives and “other”. “Other” nonroad equipment is further broken 

down into several sub-categories of equipment and vehicles. These 

include: agricultural, commercial, construction and mining, industrial, lawn 

and garden, logging, pleasure craft, and recreational. Emissions for all 

sectors were estimated using four separate methodologies. Nonroad 

emissions for 2007 for the NYMA are estimated for seven New York 

counties. 

 The sub-categories of “other” nonroad equipment are separated by 

2-stroke gasoline, 4-stroke gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), 

compressed natural gas (CNG) and diesel fueled engine types. All 

emissions from these sources for 2007 were estimated using Version 

2008a of the U.S. EPA Nonroad Model. The software was finalized for 

use in SIP development on June 12, 2006. Using the EPA Nonroad 

Model, nonroad emissions from New York were estimated for each 

individual county for each month of the year. Temperature and fuels blend 

data varied by month for each county across the state. To estimate 

emissions for a typical winter day, an average is calculated by summing 

the January, February and December Nonroad Model runs and then 

dividing by 90. 
Page 7 of 13

Temperature data for 2007 were acquired from the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which included historical weather 

data from thirty-three airport locations across the state of New York as 

well as surrounding locations. This information was used to develop 

average high and low temperatures for each month on a county by county 

basis. The results were input into the Nonroad Model. 

Gasoline and diesel fuels blend data for 2007 were acquired from 

the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. These data 

are based on thousands of samples collected across the state from fueling 

stations and retention areas. These samples are then analyzed for many 

profiles including oxygen content, Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) and sulfur 

content. The data provided average monthly fuels profiles on a county by 

county basis. The results were input into the Nonroad Model. 

2007 aircraft emissions for New York State were estimated using 

FAA’s Emission Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) Version 5.1. Airport 

specific landing and take-off data by aircraft type acquired from FAA are 

used as inputs to the model. EDMS uses this information to estimate from 

both aircraft and ground service equipment. 

 

2007 Commercial Marine Vessel (CMV) emissions are based upon 

Version 2 of the 2008 NEI. The NEI emissions from Bronx, Kings, 

Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk and 

Westchester counties are built off of the CMV emissions report prepared 

by the Starcrest Consulting Group in conjunction with their work on the 

New York Harbor Deepening Project. This project was undertaken as part 

of the Harbor Deepening Project to update the baseline inventory and to 

optimize the offsets that would be utilized by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

This data is based on actual 2002 operational data from an intensive 

survey of all CMV types, activity and fuel consumption and took several 

months to complete. While DEC would like to use the Starcrest 

methodology to update the CMV inventory for the rest of the state it would 

require an intensive effort to survey all of the counties bordering Lake Erie, 

Niagara River, Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence Seaway, Lake Champlain, 

Hudson River, Mohawk River, Erie Canal and both the Long Island Sound 

and Atlantic Ocean since Suffolk County was not included in the Starcrest 

inventory. 

The detailed CMV emissions inventory methodology can be found 

in the EPA document entitled “Documentation for Aircraft, Commercial 

Marine Vessel, Locomotive, and Other Components of the National 

Emissions Inventory – Volume I – Methodology”. This document can be 

found at: 

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2002finalnei/documentation/mobile/2002ne

i_mobile_nonroad_methods.pdf
Page 8 of 13

2007 locomotive emissions are based on Version 2 of the 2008 

NEI. These emissions were derived from a locomotive emissions report 

developed by the New York State Energy Research and Development 

Authority (NYSERDA) in conjunction with DEC. The report is entitled: 

“NYSERDA CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGY: NON-ROAD FIELD 

DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM; Development of the 2002 Locomotive 

Survey & Inventory for New York State”. The report included an intensive 

survey of all locomotive activity throughout New York State. 

Aircraft, CMV and locomotive activity is consistent throughout the 

year. Therefore, to estimate emissions for a typical winter day for these 

sectors, we divide the annual emissions total by 365. 

3.1.3 NonPoint Source Methodology 

For nonpoint source emissions, DEC referenced a series of 

technical support documents (TSD) that were prepared for MARAMA, 

which are included with this document as the following appendices: 

Appendix D – Technical Support Document for the Development of 

the 2007 Emission Inventory for Regional Air Quality Modeling in 

the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region; ver. 3.3; January 23, 2012 

Appendix E – Technical Support Document for the Development of 

the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for Regional Air Quality 

Modeling in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region; ver. 3.3; January 

23, 2012

Appendix F – Technical Support Document for the Development of 

the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the 

MANE-VU Region; ver. 3.3, rev. 2; January 23, 2012 

These documents explain the data sources, methods, and results 

for preparing emission projections for 2017 and 2025 for PM 

nonattainment areas in the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU) region. The MANE-VU region includes Connecticut, Delaware, the 

District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

Virginia is not included in the MANE-VU region, though several cities and 

counties in northern Virginia were included in this inventory as they are 

part of a nonattainment area that includes MANE-VU jurisdictions. 

Sample calculations for nonpoint sources are in Appendix I of this 

document. 

 
Page 9 of 13

3.1.4 Point Source Methodology 

The point source inventory, including EGUs, was also developed 

with the MANE-VU states. The methodology is described in the MARAMA 

TSDs listed previously (i.e., Appendices D through F). DEC used the 

compiled data and applied rule effectiveness per the method outlined in 

EPA guidance.1

 

It is acknowledged that point sources do not always run all controls 

at all times. To account for this, DEC has adopted the EPA 

recommendation in the use of rule effectiveness (RE). EPA guidance 

from 2005 was used to generate RE values for point sources within New 

York State. Once an RE value was calculated, it was applied to all 

relevant sources at the process level. When RE is applied, the result is 

increased emission estimates reflecting less than 100 percent compliance. 

The formulas below were adopted from the 2005 guidance, and illustrate 

how the application of RE will increase emissions values significantly for 

those processes that do not have an RE value of 100 percent:

Calculate uncontrolled emissions: 

ൌ ݏ݊݋݅ݏݏ݁݉݅ ݈݈݁݀݋ݎݐ݊݋ܷ݊ܿ

ݏ݊݋݅ݏݏ݁݉݅ ݈݈݁݀݋ݎݐ݊݋ܿ

ሻݕ݂݂݁݅ܿ݅݁݊ܿ ݈݋ݎݐ݊݋ܿ െ 1ሺ

Controlled emissions incorporating rule effectiveness: 

ሻሿܧܴ ൈ ݕ݂݂݁݅ܿ݅݁݊ܿ ݈݋ݎݐ݊݋ܿሺ െ 1ሾ ൈ ݏ݊݋݅ݏݏ݁݉݅ ݈݈݁݀݋ݎݐ݊݋݊ܿݑ

ݏ݊݋݅ݏݏ݁݉݅ ݈݈݁݀݋ݎݐ݊݋ܿ ൌ

As demonstrated by the equations above, applying RE will increase 

emissions values significantly for those processes that do not have a RE 

value of 100%, particularly for processes which are highly controlled. 

RE was generally applied to all processes where a control device or 

technique was used. However, NYSDEC did consider the limitations 

which are presented when a blanket RE is applied absolutely. This was 

also discussed in US EPA’s most recent guidance: 

...not all emission estimated involving use of a control device or 

technique need to be adjusted to account for RE. In some 

instances, a state or local agency may conclude that a control 

device that operated in conjunction with a continuous emissions 

 

1

 “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter for National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations”; EPA, August 2005.
Page 10 of 13

monitor, or is equipped with an automatic shutdown device, may 

provide a sufficient level of assurance that intended emission 

reductions will be achieved, and therefore an adjustment for rule 

effectiveness is not necessary. Another example would be in 

instances where a direct determination of emissions, such as via a 

mass balance calculation, can be made. (US EPA, 2005, B-3) 

To determine RE for point sources DEC utilized criteria given in US 

EPA guidance tailored to New York’s facilities and rules. A rule 

effectiveness matrix (Table 2) was developed and several criteria were 

evaluated to give a RE percentage to each appropriate process. 

Table 2 – NYSDEC Rule Effectiveness Matrix 

NYSDEC Compliance Factors Considered Rule Effectiveness 

Source specific monitoring used for compliance 

Records filed at least every 4 months 

Compliant for at least 8 quarters 

High accuracy compliance test methods are utilized 

NYSDEC has the authority to impose punitive measures 

Operators follow daily O&M instructions 

Subject to Title V (or other) compliance certification 

Subject to inspection once every 2 years or more frequently 

100% 

Source specific monitoring used as indicator of compliance 

Records filed every 6-9 months 

Facility is believed to have been compliant for at least 8 quarters 

Process parameters & inspection of control equipment are inspected 

NYSDEC has the authority to impose punitive measures 

Operators follow daily O&M instructions 

Subject to Title V (or other) compliance certification 

Subject to inspection once every 3 years or more frequently 

90% 

Source specific monitoring used as indicator of compliance 

Records filed every year 

Facility is believed to be meeting its compliance schedule 

Process review and inspection of control equipment 

NYSDEC has the authority to impose punitive measures 

Operators follow daily or weekly O&M instructions 

Not subject to compliance certification 

Subject to inspection once every 5 years or more frequently 

80% 

 
Page 11 of 13

3.2 Emission Inventory Requirements 

3.2.1 Winter-Day Inventory 

 

 DEC developed a 2007 typical winter day inventory for the 7-county 

downstate area in New York State. This inventory was developed 

consistently with EPA’s most recent guidance for emission inventories in 

nonattainment areas and is representative of the time period associated 

with the monitoring data showing attainment. A county level sectoral 

inventory with and without rule effectiveness (RE) is presented in Table 3 

below. 

Table 3 - 2007 CO Emissions by County (Tons per Winter Day) 

County FIPS County Point Point w/RE Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad Total Total w/RE 

36005 Bronx 1.44 1.77 77.18 29.38 156.54 264.54 264.87

36047 Kings 1.85 2.81 149.41 94.60 263.40 509.27 510.22

36059 Nassau 3.34 3.52 81.07 118.93 580.89 784.22 784.40

36061 New York 3.79 4.21 141.96 230.59 202.87 579.22 579.64

36081 Queens 6.88 7.71 125.77 102.03 441.15 675.83 676.66

36085 Richmond 0.99 1.48 25.57 21.12 130.41 178.09 178.58

36119 Westchester 1.07 1.11 60.18 81.66 382.66 525.58 525.62

 Total 19.37 22.61 661.14 678.31 2,157.93 3,516.75 3,519.99

4.0 VERIFICATION OF CONTINUED ATTAINMENT 

Continued attainment must be verified from ambient air quality data 

collected in the redesignation areas. DEC will continue to comply with the 

monitoring criteria set forth in 40 CFR 58, “Ambient Air Quality Surveillance.” In 

addition, DEC will continue its annual review of data from the two most recent, 

consecutive years in order to verify continued attainment of the CO NAAQS. Any 

future modifications to the monitoring network will be coordinated with EPA to 

ensure that the attainment status of the area can be adequately verified. 

5.0 CONTINGENCY MEASURES 

Maintenance plans for attainment areas must include contingency 

provisions, or extra measures beyond those needed for attainment, to offset any 

unexpected increase in emissions and ensure that the standard is maintained. 

DEC will continue with its winter-time Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) measure as 

identified in section 7.3 of the 1992 CO SIP. Additionally, several state and 

federal mobile measures for reducing ozone precursors and particulate matter 

emissions in the NYMA may provide ancillary CO reductions. Some of these 
Page 12 of 13

include: EPA’s non-road engine emissions control programs, heavy-duty vehicle 

emission standards, and heavy-duty inspection program. 

6.0 TRANSPORTATION AND GENERAL CONFORMITY 

Under the CAA, federally funded transportation projects must not cause 

or contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of NAAQS. In other words, these projects, and any emissions 

changes resulting from them, must "conform" to implementation plans 

developed by states for the criteria pollutants. Conformity generally applies to 

projects funded or approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or 

the Federal Transit Administration in areas that do not meet or previously have 

not met NAAQS for a criteria pollutant (i.e., nonattainment or maintenance 

areas). 

Section 176(c) of the CAA prohibits federal agencies from conducting 

activities in nonattainment or maintenance areas that do not conform to a state's 

SIP. General conformity requirements are in place to ensure federal activities 

not related to transportation or highway projects do not interfere with the SIP 

budgets, do not cause or contribute to new violations, and ensure the timely 

attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS as the schedule exists in the SIP. 

General conformity differs from transportation conformity in that it applies 

to projects that were not considered in the transportation improvement program 

(TIP), as the TIP applies to highways and mass transit. All federal actions not 

covered under transportation conformity are covered under general conformity 

requirements unless the actions do not exceed de minimis levels. General 

conformity requirements can be met by: (1) showing emission increases are 

already covered in the SIP; (2) the state agreeing to modify the SIP to include 

the emissions; (3) finding offsets for the increased emissions; or, (4) mitigating 

the increased emissions. 

According to the 1995 EPA guidance document for LMPs, the 

Transportation Conformity Rule and the General Conformity Rule apply to 

nonattainment and maintenance areas operating under maintenance plans. 

Under either transportation or general conformity, one means of demonstrating 

conformity of federal actions is to indicate that expected emissions from those 

actions are consistent with the emissions budget for the area. The guidance 

document states that emission budgets in the LMP area are not constraining for 

the length of the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that 

this area will experience so much growth during this period that a violation of the 

CO NAAQS would occur (see the Motor Vehicle Regional Analysis in Section 

2.3). In other words emissions in the LMP area are not capped for the 

maintenance period. Therefore, federal actions, in the LMP area, requiring 

conformity determinations under the transportation conformity rule satisfy the 

“budget test” required in the conformity rule in 40 CFR sections 93.118, 93.119 
Page 13 of 13

and 93.120. Similarly, in this area, federal actions subject to the general 

conformity rule satisfy the “budget test” specified in the conformity rule in 40 

CFR section 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A). 

DEC will use the interagency consultation process to inform all involved 

agencies that, upon approval of the LMP, CO budgets will no longer be 

constraining for transportation conformity because of the low levels of emissions 

and expected growth rates during the period. Once the LMP is approved, 

regional transportation conformity is presumed to be satisfied, with no need for a 

quantitative comparison of budgets for the second ten-year maintenance period. 

DEC will also ensure that project-level CO evaluations of transportation projects 

(i.e., project level conformity, as described in 40 CFR 93.116) are carried out as 

part of environmental reviews. 

7.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

 Section 121 of the Act requires states to provide a satisfactory process of 

consultation with general purpose local governments, and designated 

organizations of elected officials of local governments. 

 Participation by affected local entities, as well as the public, is provided for 

through 6 NYCRR Part 617, “State Environmental Quality Review” (SEQR). For 

each major SIP revision, SEQR requires DEC to provide appropriate notice, 

provide the opportunity to submit written comments, and allow the public and 

local entities the opportunity to request a public hearing. 

 DEC is generally self-reliant when it comes to developing, implementing, 

and enforcing the SIP. When necessary, additional consultation and participation 

by local political subdivisions are provided through the SIP Task Force that was 

established in 2005, which consists of officials from 37 local governments and 

designated organizations of elected officials. Otherwise, New York’s county 

agencies are no longer relied upon for their assistance with these SIP-related 

tasks, nor are any other organizations. 

 

8.0 CONCLUSIONS 

 DEC believes it has addressed and satisfied all the criteria of Section 

175A of the Act. This SIP submittal shows that design values (two years of 

ambient monitoring data) for CO are at or below 85% of exceedance levels of the 

CO NAAQS; therefore, DEC has met the requirements for a LMP. The 

maintenance demonstration shows that future year CO emissions will not exceed 

the level of the attainment year and effective safeguards are in place for the 

NAAQS for at least 10 years following EPA’s redesignation.