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, COMMISSIONERTHIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKTable of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. National Ambient Air Qua lity Standards for Carbon Monoxide 1.2. New York Metropolitan Area Car bon 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

AppendicesLIST 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 Am bient Air Quality Monitors

LIST OF APPENDICES

A CO Design Values 2007-2011

B EPA Guidance Document “Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Noncla ssifiable CO Nonattainment Areas”.

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

D Technical Support Document for t he Development of the 2007 Emission Inventory for Regional Air Quality Modeli ng in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region; ver. 3.3; January 23, 2012

E Technical Support Docum ent 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 t he 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 SourcesAcronyms 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

NO 2 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 Depa rtment Of Transportation

NYSERDA New York State Ener gy 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 DiagnosticsPM Particulate Matter

PM 2.5 Fine PM; Particulate Matter with an aerodynamic diameter ≤
2.5 micrometers

PM 10 Coarse PM; Particulate Matter with an aerodynamic

diameter ≤ 10 micrometers ppm parts per million PSD Prevention of Signi ficant Deterioration QA Quality Assurance QC Quality Control

RE Rule Effectiveness RVP Reid Vapor Pressure SAF Seasonal Adjustment Factor
SEQR State Environment al Quality Review SIP State Impl ementation Plan

SO 2 Sulfur Dioxide TIP Transportation Im provement Program TSD Technical Support Document VOC Volatile Organic Compound

VMT Vehicle Miles TraveledPage 1 of 13 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 National Ambient Air Qualit y Standards for Carbon Monoxide

In accordance with section 109 of t he Clean Air Act (Act), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for several cr iteria pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO). CO is a colorless, odor less gas, a poison by inhalation, and can cause asphyxiation. The dominant source of CO is incomplete combustion from

motor vehicles. CO concentrations ar e most pronounced in the ambient air during winter months, when motor v ehicles 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 prim ary CO NAAQS; a one-hour standard of 35 parts per million (ppm) and a n on-overlapping eight-hour average standard of 9 ppm. The one-hour NAAQS is exceeded when measured data equals 35.5 pm or gr eater, and the eight-hour NAAQS is exceeded when measured data equals 9.5 ppm or greater. An area is in violat ion of the NAAQS if it experiences more than one excee dance of any standar d within a calendar year (one exceedance of bot h 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 Car bon Monoxide Air Quality History

On November 23, 1999, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) submitted a proposed re vision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to the EPA. The submissi on was a CO redesignation request and maintenance plan for the New York Me tropolitan Area (NYMA). This request was to redesignate the New York portion of the New York – Northern New Jersey - Long Island CO nonattainment area from nona ttainment to attain ment of the CO NAAQS. EPA approved the redesignatio n request because the CO NAAQS was being met in New York and it met the redes ignation requirements set forth in the Act. New York’s CO maintenance plan was approved by EPA because it provided for continued attain ment 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. Curr ently, there are no areas of New York State designated as nonattainme nt 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 lastPage 2 of 13 review of the CO NAAQS was complet ed in 1994 and EPA chose not to revise

the standards at that time. On Januar y 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 m onitors to be sited near roads in certain urban areas. EPA is requiring one CO monitor to be collocated with a “near-road” nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) monitor in urban areas having popu lations 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 c ontinuing maintenance of the NAAQS. That maintenance SIP must provide cont ingency 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 f our elements listed below:

1. A demonstration that the nat ional standard has been attained

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

2. Provisions for continued air moni toring to verify the attainment status of the redesignated area;

3. A demonstration to show t hat the proposed reductions in emissions will be enough to maintain the standard; and 4. A contingency provision to corre ct any violations of the standard that might occur after the area is redesignated to attainment.

In order to use the lim ited 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 cont inue to be at or
below 85% of exceedance leve ls of the CO N AAQS until the time of final EPA action or the redesignation.

EPA’s guidance for limited maintenance pl ans 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 pr oposed 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 N AAQS, because the 8-hour NAAQS is typically the

standard of concern. Howe ver, a 1-hour design value would be computed in thesame manner. For 8-hour CO, the maximum and second maximum (nonoverlapping) 8-hour values at a site for the most recent 2 y ears of data are used to determine compliance with the NAAQ S. DEC used the values from the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) AMP450, "Qui ck 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 high est of those is used as the design value for the area. Note that , for each site, indivi dual years of CO data are considered separately to determi ne the second maximum for each year

- CO data are not combined fr om different years. Th e CO NAAQS requires that

not more than one 8-hour aver age per year can exceed 9 ppm (greater than orPage 4 of 13 equal to 9.5 ppm to adjust for rounding). DEC evaluate s attainment over a twoyear period. If an area has a design va lue greater that 9 ppm, it means there was a monitoring site where the sec ond 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, t he 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 dem onstrate effective safeguards of the NAAQS are in place for at least 10 years following the r edesignation showing that future year CO emissi ons will not exceed the level of the attainment year. To make this demonstration, DEC comple ted a Motor Vehicle Regional Analysis, to support the use of the LMP option for the maintenance demon stration. 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 t he assumption of maintenance that underlies the LMP policy. This analysis is su bmitted 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 t he most recent 2 years of quality assured data in ppm. The design va lue for the area is 2.3 ppm based on 2011 monitoring data at the Pfiz er Lab location (36-005-0133).

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

next 10 years. The VMT growth rate (V MTpi) was developed based on a linear regression of Highway Performance Moni toring System (HPMS) historical data for forecasting VMT prepared by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). These projec tions 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. T he DVmv of 1.45 ppm was derived by multiplying DV by the percentage of the attainment year inventory represented by on-road mobile sour ces (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 per cent 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 an alysis 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 mo torized vehicles operated on publicPage 6 of 13 roadways. All on-road mobile source emissions were estimated using

EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simu lator (MOVES) model using locallydeveloped inputs for each of the 7 c ounties in the nonattainment area. These inputs include varying meteorolog ical data, vehicle activity, fuel characteristics, and emissions control programs.

“Base-year” inventory inputs we re 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 Stat e On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission Budget MOVES Technical Support Docu ment 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 emission s are separated by four main categories. These include airc raft, 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, c onstruction 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 ar e estimated for seven New York

counties.

The sub-categories of “other” nonroad equipment are separated by 2-stroke gasoline, 4-stroke gasoli ne, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural gas (CNG) and di esel 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 Depar tment of Agriculture and Markets. These data are based on thousands of samples colle cted 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 mont hly fuels profiles on a county by county basis. The results were input into the Nonroad Model.

2007 aircraft emissions for New YorkState were estimated using FAA’s Emission Dispersion Modeling Syst em (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 NE I 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 utiliz ed by the Army Corps of Engineers. This data is based on actual 2002 oper ational 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 fo r 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 S t. 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 inve ntory methodology can be found

in the EPA document entitled “Docum entation for Aircraft, Commercial Marine Vessel, Locomotive, and Ot her Components of the National Emissions Inventory – Volume I – Me thodology”. This document can be

found at: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2002f inalnei/documentation/mobile/2002ne i_mobile_nonroad_methods.pdfPage 8 of 13 2007 locomotive emissions are based on Version 2 of the 2008

NEI. These emissions were derived fr om a locomotive emissions report developed by the New Yo rk State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) in conjunction wit h DEC. The report is entitled:

“NYSERDA CLEAN DIESEL TECHNO LOGY: NON-ROAD FIELD DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM; Developm ent of the 2002 Locomotive Survey & Inventory for New York St ate”. The report included an intensive survey of all locomotive activi ty throughout New York State.

Aircraft, CMV and locomotive activity is consistent throughout the year. Therefore, to estimate emissi ons for a typical winter day for these sectors, we divide the annua l 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 Regi onal 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-Atlan tic 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-Atlant ic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU) region. The MANE-VU region includes Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryl and, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvani a, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Virginia is not included in the MANE -VU region, though several cities and counties in northern Virginia were incl uded in this inventory as they are part of a nonattainment area that includes MANE-VU jurisdictions. Sample calculations for nonpoint s ources are in Appendix I of this

document.Page 9 of 13 3.1.4 Point Source Methodology

The point source inventory, in cluding 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 effe ctiveness per the method outlined in EPA guidance. 1

It is acknowledged that point sour ces 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 val ues for point sources within New

York State. Once an RE value wa s 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 hav e an RE value of 100 percent:

Calculate uncontrolled emissions:

ൌ ݏ݊݋݅ݏݏ݁݉݅ ݈݈݁݀݋ݎݐ݊݋ܷ݊ܿ ݏ݊݋݅ݏݏ݁݉݅ ݈݈݁݀݋ݎݐ݊݋ܿ
ሻݕ݂݂݁݅ܿ݅݁݊ܿ ݈݋ݎݐ݊݋ܿ െ 1ሺ

Controlled emissions incorpor ating rule effectiveness:

ൈ ݏ݊݋݅ݏݏ݁݉݅ ݈݈݁݀݋ݎݐ݊݋݊ܿݑ ሾ െ 1 ሺ ܧܴ ൈ ݕ݂݂݁݅ܿ݅݁݊ܿ ݈݋ݎݐ݊݋ܿ ሻሿ

ݏ݊݋݅ݏݏ݁݉݅ ݈݈݁݀݋ݎݐ݊݋ܿ ൌ

As demonstrated by the equations above, applying RE will increase emissions values signific antly for those processes that do not have a RE value of 100%, particularly for proce sses which are highly controlled.

RE was generally applied to all pr ocesses where a control device or technique was used. However, NYSD EC 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 involv ing use of a control device or technique need to be adjusted to a ccount for RE. In some instances, a state or local agency may conclude that a control device that operated in conjuncti on 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 t herefore an adjustment for rule effectiveness is not necessary. Another example would be in

instances where a direct determinat ion of emissions, such as via a mass balance calculation, can be made. (US EPA, 2005, B-3)

To determine RE for point sources DE C 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 te st 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 ev ery 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 ev ery 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 ev ery 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 representativ e of the time period associated with the monitoring data showing atta inment. A county level sectoral inventory with and without rule effect iveness (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 veri fied 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 cont inued 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 t hose needed for attainment, to offset any unexpected increase in emi ssions and ensure that the st andard is maintained.

DEC will continue with its winter-time Re id 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 anci llary CO reductions. Some of thesePage 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 Admi nistration (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 r equirements 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 transpor tation 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 stat e 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 oper ating under maintenance plans. Under either transportation or general c onformity, one means of demonstrating conformity of federal actions is to indi cate that expected emissions from those

actions are consistent with the emissions budget for the ar ea. The guidance

document states that emi ssion budgets in the LMP area are not constraining for the length of the maintenance period becau se it is unreasonable to expect that this area will experience so much growth dur ing this period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would occur (see the Motor Ve hicle Regional Analysis in Section 2.3). In other words emissions in the LMP area are not capped for the maintenance period. Ther efore, federal actions, in the LMP area, requiring conformity determinations under the trans portation conformity rule satisfy the “budget test” required in the conformity rule in 40 CFR sections 93.118, 93.119Page 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 per iod. Once the LMP is approved, regional transportation conformity is pr esumed to be satisfied, with no need for a quantitative comparison of budgets for the second ten-y ear maintenance period. DEC will also ensure that project-level CO evaluations of transportation projects (i.e., project level conformi ty, 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 offici als of local governments.

Participation by affected local entitie s, as well as the public, is provided for through 6 NYCRR Part 617, “State Envir onmental Quality Review” (SEQR). For each major SIP revision, SEQR requires DEC to provide appr opriate notice, provide the opportunity to submit writt en comments, and allow the public and local entities the opportunity to request a public hearing.

DEC is generally self-reliant when it comes to develop ing, implementing, and enforcing the SIP. When necessary, addi tional consultation and participation by local political subdivisions are pr ovided through the SIP Task Force that was established in 2005, which consists of officials from 37 local governments and designated organizations of elected offi cials. Otherwise, New York’s county agencies are no longer relied upon for thei r assistance with these SIP-related tasks, nor are any other organizations.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

DEC believes it has addressed and sa tisfied all the criteria of Section

175A of the Act. This SIP submittal s hows that design values (two years of ambient monitoring data) for CO are at or below 85% of exceeda nce levels of the CO NAAQS; therefore, DEC has met the requirements for a LMP. The

maintenance demonstration shows that futu re year CO emissions will not exceed the level of the attainment year and e ffective safeguards are in place for the NAAQS for at least 10 years following EPA’s redesignation.