7-1

7.0 Air Quality Trends, Baselines & Projections for the New 

York Nonattainment Area (New York Metropolitan Area, 

Connecticut and Northern New Jersey)

7.1 Air Quality Trends - New York 

With the promulgation of the annual and daily PM2.5 national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) in 1997, and the establishment of the Federal 

Reference Method (FRM) for monitoring PM2.5 and the PM2.5 monitoring 

network, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

(Department) initiated monitoring for this pollutant on a statewide basis 

beginning in 1998/1999. A majority of the monitoring efforts to date have 

involved 24-hour, filter-based FRM samplers. Most of the FRM samplers 

operate on a 1-in-3-day schedule, although a few monitors operate on a 

daily basis. Also, as per network design requirements, several FRM sites 

have collocated duplicate samplers. 

The PM2.5 NAAQS is mass-based, but ambient PM2.5 has a complex 

morphology and chemical composition. In order to obtain information on 

species composition, the Department also has operated Speciation 

Trends Network (STN) monitors at several locations across the state. 

Similar to the FRM network, the STN samplers operate on a 1-in-3-day 

schedule. The STN program provides for the concentration of major ions, 

carbon compounds, and trace elements, which generally constitute the 

bulk of PM2.5 mass. 

7.1.1 FRM data 

Table1 lists the site locations and sampling periods between 1999-2006 

for all FRM monitors in the three Department sub-regions that cover parts 

of the New York Metropolitan Non-Attainment Area (NY Metro NAA): 

Region 1 (Long Island; 6 sites), Region 2 (New York City; 19 sites), and 

Region 3 (Lower Hudson River Valley; 3 sites). The analysis included 

Dutchess County for completeness, even though it is not part of the NY 

Metro NAA area. Seven of the Region 2 sites have collocated duplicate 

monitors. Three of the sites also operated daily for at least part of the 

time. A map of the FRM locations is shown in Figure 7-1. 

Table 2 lists the linear trends in PM2.5 mass at longest-running sites FRM 

sites in the New York metropolitan area. These sites operated from 

1999/2000 through 2006, and the trends reported in Table 7-2 are based 

on quarterly average values at each site. Only those quarters with at least 

10 valid data points were included in the linear trend estimates. Consistent 
7-2

with the composite averages presented earlier, PM2.5 mass appears to be 

decreasing at each of these longest-running sites, by ~0.1-0.5 ug/m3/yr. 

7.1.2 STN data 

Table 7-3 lists the site locations and sampling periods of the STN 

monitors. Each of these sites is collocated with an FRM monitor. The 

STN samplers collect five ions – sulfate (SO4), nitrate (NO3), ammonium 

(NH4), potassium (K), and sodium (Na) – nearly 50 trace elements, and 

various carbon species – elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC). 

For this analysis, it was assumed that PM2.5 is primarily composed of only 

SO4, NO3, NH4, EC, OC, and major crustal species (major oxides of Al, 

Ca, Fe, Si, and Ti; e.g., US EPA, 2007), and hereafter refer to the sum of 

these species as the “reconstructed mass.” Although the PM2.5 NAAQS is 

strictly mass-based, here an attempt is made to approximate the average 

species composition of the ambient PM2.5 in New York City. 

Figure 2 displays the annual, wintertime, and summertime average major 

PM2.5 speciation levels. On an overall annual basis, SO4 and OC account 

for about 27% and 35%, respectively, of the reconstructed mass in New 

York City, roughly twice the contribution of NO3. During the winter 

months, OC is the largest contributor to the reconstructed mass (34%), 

while SO4 and NO3 also account for about 20%. The relative importance 

of NO3 is higher during the winter months because NO3 volatilization is 

much lower during the colder months. During the summer months, SO4

and OC levels are considerably higher than during the winter months, and 

account for about 70% of the reconstructed mass. The smallest 

components of reconstructed mass correspond to EC and crustal mass 

(~4-8%). On average, the reconstructed mass in New York City is about 

18.2 ug/m3 during the summer months, and about 15.2 ug/m3 during the 

winter months. 

7.1.3 Trend Summary - New York 

The FRM data collected across the New York metropolitan area over the 

past seven years suggest that PM2.5 levels are generally higher in the core 

urban areas compared to the surrounding suburban counties. While this 

is a rather short time period, it appears that PM2.5 levels have been 

decreasing across the entire metropolitan area since the early 2000’s. In 

terms of species composition, SO4 and OC are the most important 

species, especially during the summer months, while NO3 is also an 

important species during the winter months. It appears that emissions 

control programs that target precursors of SO4, NO3, and OC will be 

needed to further reduce PM2.5 levels across the metropolitan area. 
7-3

7.2 Air Quality Trends - Connecticut and New Jersey 

An analysis was conducted of the ambient data for those monitors in 

Connecticut (two counties) and New Jersey (10 counties) that are part of 

the NY Metro NAA for PM2.5. The analysis is based upon the FRM data 

covering the period of 1999 to 2006, which were extracted from the EPA 

Air Quality System (AQS) data on December 26, 2007. To be consistent 

with the analysis reported in TSD-3a (2007) “Analysis of Ambient PM2.5

Mass and Speciation for the New York metropolitan area through 2006. 

NYSDEC, Division of Air Resources, Albany, NY 12233,” the data from 

July 6-9, 2002 that was associated with large-scale Canadian forest fires 

were excluded. 

7.2.1 Connecticut 

The Connecticut portion of the NY Metro NAA had 14 sites at various 

times during this period; five of these sites have collocated duplicate 

monitors and two of the sites had every day sampling for at least a portion 

of the time. It should be noted that the New Haven/Stiles St. monitor was 

designated as a “special purpose” monitor, and as such cannot be used to 

make an attainment or non-attainmment designation. The stations are 

listed in Table 4 along with their operational dates. 

7.2.2 New Jersey 

The New Jersey portion of the NY Metro NAA had 15 monitoring sites at 

various times during this period; three of these sites have collocated 

duplicate monitors and two of the sites had every day sampling for at least 

a portion of the time. Information on these monitors is listed in Table 7-4. 

7.2.3 Analysis 

A very cursory analysis was performed on these data, similar to what was 

done for the NY sites. The annual average estimates are listed in Table 7-

5. Only those monitors with at least 75% valid samples in a given year are 

shown and blank cells indicate that either the sampler was not in operation 

or it did not meet the 75% criteria. 

In general, the CT monitors are below the level of the annual PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 15 ug/m3, with the 

exception of the New Haven/Stile Street special purpose monitoring site. 
7-4

In the case of NJ, there is obvious year-to-year variation at some of the 

sites, and a few of the monitors are above the level of the annual PM2.5

NAAQS. However, this estimated annual average should not be 

confused with that based on the regulatory process that requires 

estimation of the annual average based upon individual quarterly data. 

Table 7-6 lists the 98th percentile of the PM2.5 concentration at each of 

these monitors, and again, only those years that had 75% valid samples 

are shown. 

7.2.4 Trend Summary - Connecticut and New Jersey 

The above data were used to estimate the annual trends at the longestrunning sites. For this analysis, quarterly averages were computed at 

these sites. Quarters were considered to be complete if there were at 

least 10 valid samples. 

Table 7-7 lists the estimated linear trends on an annual basis. All 

monitors except for the New Haven/Stiles Street special purpose 

monitor show a downward trend, varying between 0.05 ug/m3 and 0.49 

ug/m3, indicating general improvement in PM2.5 air quality over the 

region and consistent with what was reported for the NY monitors. 

7.3 Baseline and Future PM2.5 Design Values 

Baseline PM2.5 design values for a given area are based solely on 

measured Federal Reference Method (FRM) data, whereas air quality 

model-based results utilizing emissions from a target future year are 

needed to project PM2.5 design values to determine future attainment 

status of that area. The modeling guidance (USEPA, 2007a) states that 

the results from the regulatory applications of air quality models are not 

to be used in an absolute sense; rather, they are to be used to estimate 

the effects of changes in emissions on pollutant levels in a relative 

sense. For a single pollutant like ozone, the future design value at a 

given location is the product of the current observed value and the ratio 

of the future-to-current model predictions. The ratio of the future-tocurrent model prediction is also known as the relative response factor 

(RRF). Unlike ozone, PM2.5 is comprised of a variety of ions, trace 

elements, and carbon species. To demonstrate future attainment of air 

quality standards for PM2.5, one needs to project how each of the major 

species changes between the baseline and future model years. That is, 

it is necessary to estimate speciated RRF values. In this document, an 

overview is presented of the calculation of the baseline PM2.5 design 

values and speciated RRFs for monitors in the 22-county New York City 
7-5

non-attainment area (NYC NAA), which when combined yield future 

year PM2.5 design values across the NYC NAA. 

In the February 11, 2008 addendum to the technical support 

documentation (See the appendices to this document) for the annual 

PM2.5 SIP for the New York City non-attainment area (NYC NAA), 

“Current and Future PM2.5 Design Values in the New York City 

Metropolitan Non-Attainment Area (TSD-5).” The USEPA has since 

released a beta version of the Modeled Attainment Test Software 

(MATS, version 1.3.1) for computing baseline and future design values 

for the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This 

Addendum does not replace TSD-5, although all design values listed in 

TSD-5 should be considered preliminary because they were not 

computed with the MATS. Note that one site – 340172002 (Union City 

[Hudson County], NJ) – was included in TSD-5 but is not included in the 

addendum. The data from this site were classified as complete in the 

MATS because of “minimum value substitution,” with a design value 

exceeding 15 ug/m3 for the 2001-2002 period; however, the monitor 

was shut down during the first quarter of 2002. With only one complete, 

classifiable year of actual monitoring data during the five-year baseline 

design value period (2000-2004), this site was not used by the MATS 

and is, therefore, not included in this Addendum. 

The PM2.5 data across much of the northeastern United States was 

dramatically affected by large forest fires in eastern Canada during the 

July 6-9, 2002 period. Many states submitted exceptional event flags 

with the data on selected days during this period. In March 2003, the 

Department sent documentation (see Attachment A) to USEPA Region 

2 seeking concurrence that the data from July 7, 2002 be excluded for 

the estimation of the daily and annual standards. Since the USEPA did 

not concur with these exceptional event flags, the data from this day and 

other flagged days around this day were included in the official Federal 

Reference Method (FRM) database in the beta version of the MATS. 

This issue was raised again with USEPA Region 2 in January 2008, 

which has since concurred with the Department’s findings (see 

Attachment B). In terms of official FRM locations in the NYC NAA, there 

are two daily sites in New York (360050110, I.S. 52 [Bronx County]; and 

360810124, Queens College [Queens County]) and one daily site in 

New Jersey (340390004, Elizabeth/NJ Turnpike [Union County]). In the 

USEPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) database, the data from the daily 

New York sites are flagged as exceptional events on July 6 and 7, while 

the Elizabeth data are flagged from July 7-9. 
7-6

It should be noted that Connecticut flagged all data from July 6-9, 2002 

and received EPA concurrence. Hence, the official quarterly average 

FRM database in this beta version of the MATS does not include these 

days at the Connecticut monitors, and as such, the design values at 

these monitors are not impacted by this unusual period. 

7.3.1 Current PM2.5 Design Values 

The first step in the modeled attainment test for the annual NAAQS is to 

compute the baseline design values at each FRM site in the NYC NAA. 

The current design value is based on a five-year weighted average of 

observations from 2000-2004 to straddle the baseline 

emissions/modeling year of 2002 (USEPA, 2007). MATS was used to 

compute the baseline PM2.5 design values two ways. The first method 

takes the official quarterly average database included in the MATS, 

which incorporates the flagged FRM data from New York and New 

Jersey during July 2002. For the second method, the FRM data on 

these flagged days were ignored at the New York and New Jersey 

monitors, and recomputed the averages for the third quarter of 2002. 

Table 7-8 lists the average PM2.5 levels at the New York and New 

Jersey monitors during the third quarter of 2002, both including and 

excluding the flagged days. By ignoring these exceptional days, the 

averages during this quarter were lower by about 2 ug/m3 across these 

sites. The only site whose quarterly average was not impacted by this 

day was 360390006 (Elizabeth [Union County], NJ), because the FRM 

data were already missing on this day. 

Table 7-9 lists the baseline PM2.5 design values using these two 

methods. At the Connecticut monitors there is no difference between 

these two methods, since the data from this day were already flagged 

and not used. At most of the New York and New Jersey monitors, 

exclusion of the flagged data from July 2002 results in lowering of the 

baseline PM2.5 design values which by about 0.1-0.2 ug/m3. All 

subsequent analysis presented here disregard all flagged data from July 

2002. 

7.3.1.1 Baseline Species Concentrations 

The next step in the modeled attainment test is to determine the 

baseline species composition at each FRM monitor, based on measured 

species data. The PM2.5 species composition is highly complex, but if 

the goal of air quality management decisions is to reduce PM2.5, it is 

necessary to know the dominant chemical species. The MATS includes 

speciation data for the 2002-2004 period, which are derived from 
7-7

Speciation Trends Network (STN) and Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitor data. These 

networks measure major ions, including sulfate (SO4), nitrate (NO3), and 

ammonium (NH4); carbonaceous species, including elemental carbon 

(EC) and organic carbon (OC); and dozens of trace elements. 

It is known that FRM monitor filters do not retain semi-volatile species 

such as ammonium nitrate and some organics with high efficiency, 

particularly during the warmer months. Hence, one cannot simply add 

up the major species measured by the STN or IMPROVE monitors and 

expect to relate this identically to the total mass from the FRM monitor. 

According to the modeling guidance (USEPA, 2007) the mass from the 

FRM monitor can be expressed as: 

PM2.5 = “retained nitrate mass” + “ammoniated sulfate mass” + “ammonium [Eq. 1] 

associated with sulfate and retained nitrate” + “particle-bound water”+ 

“other primary PM2.5” + “salt” + “blank mass” + “carbonaceous mass”

Where PM2.5 refers to the total mass measured at each FRM site; 

“retained nitrate mass” (NO3r) and “ammonium associated with sulfate 

and retained nitrate” refer only to the fractions of NO3 and NH4, 

respectively, that are not volatilized; “ammoniated sulfate mass” refers 

to the SO4 that is measured by the STN; “particle-bound water” refers to 

water that is associated with the hygroscopic ammonium sulfate and 

nitrate, and can be estimated as a polynomial function of retained 

ammonium, sulfate, and nitrate; “other primary PM2.5” refers to 

unspeciated, inert PM2.5 such as soil/crustal elements (here assumed to 

be the sum of major crustal oxides – Si, Ca, Fe, and Ti); “salt” is 1.8×Cl; 

“blank mass” refers to passively collected contamination, assumed to be 

0.5 mg m-3; and “carbonaceous mass” refers to EC and an estimate of 

retained OC. Because of uncertainties in the measured OC, the 

modeling guidance suggests that organic mass be computed as the 

difference between the measured FRM mass and the sum of the other 

species listed above. 

 

MATS and the official speciation database, which includes adjustments 

to the various species, were used to compute baseline species 

concentrations at each FRM site in the NYC NAA. The MATS also 

performs spatial averaging of the adjusted speciation data since actual 

STN or IMPROVE data are not available at every FRM location. It 

should be noted that the July 7, 2002 data from the STN monitors in the 

NYC NAA in the official MATS database were flagged by EPA and, 

hence, not used to compute baseline species composition. Table 7-10 

lists the non-blank baseline species composition, as defined in Equation 
7-8

1 above. Note that in the case of retained NH4, the actual measured 

data were not used here, due to uncertainties in its measurement. The 

modeling guidance (USEPA, 2007) suggests that NH4 be estimated 

according to degree of neutralization (DON) of sulfate: 

NH4 = DON×SO4 + 0.29×NO3r [Eq. 2] 

to allow the future NH4 value to depend only on SO4 and NO3r, since 

reductions in emissions generally are targeting precursors of SO4 and 

NO3. 

 

7.3.1.2 Relative Response Factors 

As stated in the modeling guidance (USEPA, 2007), the air quality 

modeling results are to be used in a relative sense to compute future 

PM2.5 design values. For each species i, the future concentration of 

each species (CFi) is the product of the current concentration (CCi) and 

the corresponding RRFi: 

CFi = CCi×RRFi [Eq. 3] 

The RRF values for SO4, NO3r, OM, EC, and OPP were based on 

application of the CMAQ model for the baseline year of 2002 and future 

year of 2009. All RRF values were computed by the MATS on a 

quarterly basis. Earlier chapters of the technical supporting 

documentation describe the annual model applications in detail: 

biogenic emissions (TSD-2a), base year 2002 emissions (TSD-2b), 

emissions processing and air quality modeling using CMAQ (TSD-2c), 

and future year 2009 emissions (TSD-4). 

7.3.2 Future PM2.5 Design Values 

Table 7-11 lists the current and future design values at each FRM 

location in the NYC NAA. Note that on the average the design values 

across the NYC NAA were lowered by about 1.6 ug/m3, ranging from 

1.3-2.1 ug/m3, in 2009 compared to the baseline 2002 design values. 

Also note that every site has a future design below the annual NAAQS 

level of 15 ug/m3, with the exception of one site – P.S. 59 (360610056) 

in New York County, NY – which has a future design value of 15.2 

ug/m3. Additional corroboratory analyses and weight of evidence 

(WOE) determinations are necessary to demonstrate attainment at this 

monitor, since this future design value falls within the 14.5-15.5 ug/m3 

WOE guideline range. In addition, the Canal Street (360610062) 
7-9

monitor, also in New York County, has a future year design value of 

14.5 ug/m3. Attachment 2 from TSD-5 details the Department’s WOE 

analysis that supports the projection that the NYC NAA, including New 

York County, will be considered to be in attainment of the annual PM2.5 

NAAQS. 

7.4 Weight of Evidence (WOE) in Support of Modeled Attainment of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the New York City Nonattainment Area

The EPA modeling guidance (US EPA, 2007), in conjunction with 

ambient Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5 mass data from 2000-

2004 and baseline and future air quality modeling results, has been 

applied to determine the attainment status of the NY Metro NAA with 

respect to the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 

The application of the EPA guidance for estimating the future design 

values based on the use of relative response factor (RRF) has resulted 

in one monitor – P.S. 59 (360610056), located in New York County, NY 

– to exceed the annual PM2.5 NAAQS level of 15 ug/m3. The estimated 

future PM2.5 design value at this monitor, based on this procedure, is 

15.3 ug/m3. This value falls within the uncertainty range of ±0.5 ug/m3 

of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and supplemental analyses are needed for 

this monitor to be considered to be in attainment. In the following 

sections, information is provided to suggest that there is high degree of 

potential that estimated future design value will be below the annual 

NAAQS. 

7.4.1 Monitoring Network in New York County and Surroundings

For most of the 2000-2004 period New York County, NY had 4 FRM 

monitors, but only one Speciation Trends Network (STN) monitor 

collocated with the FRM at the Canal Street site (360610062) to provide 

information on composition of the baseline PM2.5 species. Figure 7-3 

displays the location of the four monitors as well as monitors in the 

surrounding counties. Table 7-12 lists the dates of operation of the FRM 

monitors in New York County; the base year design value for 2002, 

which is a weighted average of the measurements in the 2000 to 2004 

period; and the nearest STN monitor. It should be noted that not all 

monitors in New York County were assigned the same STN monitor, 

because the approach selected was to use the nearest neighborhood 

monitor to link the FRM and STN. In the case of the J.H.S.45 

(36061007) FRM monitor in New York County, the nearest STN monitor 

is the Bronx County I.S.52 site (360050110), and this site is also 

included in Table 7-12. 
7-10

The current speciation levels estimated at these monitors are listed in 

Table 7-13. Only two of these sites – Canal Street and I.S.52 – have 

collocated STN monitors, while the species composition at the other 

FRM sites are only estimates based on the speciation data from a 

nearby monitor. Examination of the speciation data at Canal Street and 

I.S.52 suggests that there may be fairly substantial gradients in PM2.5

species composition over the non-attainment area, on the order of 

several tenths of a ug/m3. Thus the estimates listed for the other 

monitors should only be considered approximate, and in some cases 

may not necessarily be representative of species composition at these 

monitors. This is certainly a limitation that needs to be taken into 

consideration when projecting the future design values using the model 

results and the current speciation levels. 

 

Although the air quality modeling results are to be used in a relative 

sense, it is instructive to examine the changes in PM2.5 mass that the 

model predicts in an absolute sense to see the direct impacts of 

emissions reductions. The CMAQ-predicted average PM2.5 mass over 

the nine-grid cells that surround each of these FRM monitors (see Table 

14) in the base (2002) and future (2009) years was examined. Note that 

CMAQ predicts a consistent reduction of about 16% over each FRM 

monitor in New York County. Although not shown here, future PM2.5

concentrations at each FRM location across the 22-county NY Metro 

NAA are predicted by CMAQ to decrease by 12-18%. 

7.4.2 Other Data Analysis

A recent study by Qin et al. (2006) suggest that sum of sulfate and 

nitrate comprise about 40% or more of the PM2.5 mass in the NYC 

metropolitan area, and that 70% or more of the PM2.5 measured in NYC 

results from transport into the region. Based on results from source 

apportionment modeling using Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF), the 

authors determined that the largest single source factor affecting NYC is 

“secondary sulfate” associated with SO2 emissions from upwind regions. 

It is clear that emission reductions in upwind states will be needed to 

further reduce PM2.5 in the NY Metro NAA. 

In TSD-3a, found in the appendices to this document, PM2.5 levels 

appear to be decreasing across the NY Metro NAA. Although the data 

records for PM2.5 are somewhat short, it is estimated that PM2.5 mass is 

decreasing by about 0.1-0.5ug/m3

/yr. At the P.S.59 site PM2.5 mass 

measurements are decreasing by about 0.3ug/m3

/yr during 1999-2006. 

In addition to PM2.5 mass, several criteria pollutants are also measured 

at the P.S.59 site. The trends in SO2 and NO2 from 1993 to 2006 were 
7-11

examined using the seasonal Kendall test, and found that ambient 

levels are declining at rates of 3.4% yr-1 and 1.7% yr-1, respectively. This 

again points to the potential that this area would be meeting the annual 

NAAQS, given that there are various measures under consideration that 

are aimed at decreasing the emissions of PM2.5 precursors. 

7.4.4 Summary 

In summary, the above analysis shows that, based upon the EPA 

guidance only one monitor in the New York PM2.5 nonattainment area 

falls slightly above the level of the annual NAAQS, but still within the 

framework of uncertainty. The analysis suggests that lack of collocated 

speciation monitors and use of speciation information from the nearest 

neighborhood monitor may have contributed to the estimate of PM2.5 

being above the level of NAAQS at the P.S.59 monitor. Examining the 

trends in precursors as well as measured PM2.5 at P.S.59 suggests a 

downward path and that coupled with the observation that the 

contribution to the secondary species is from upwind regions rather than 

local, favors strongly that this monitor will also be in attainment similar to 

the rest of them in the region. Analysis based on the only other monitor 

(360610062) with similar PM2.5 concentrations is projected to be below 

the level of the annual NAAQS, suggests that P.S.59 (360610056) 

would also be similarly be below the level of the annual NAAQS. 

7.4.5 Additional Information 

It should be noted that more specific information and the detailed 

analyses on the determination of baseline and future design values, and 

air quality trends, are presented in Appendix B of this document. 

7.5 Weight of Evidence: Additional Measures Not Accounted for in 

Modeling Projections 

*This section was modified by the NJDEP by information received by 

NY* 

A number of control programs are being adopted or implemented that 

are not represented in the projection inventories for 2009. The control 

programs in this section include: 

 - Part 222, Distributed Generation 

 - Part 227-2, NOx RACT (High Electric Demand Day Units) 

 - Parts 243, 244, and 245, Clean Air Interstate Rule 

 - Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2006 

- Existing and New/Revised State VOC Reduction Measures 
7-12

 - Federal Rules for VOC Reductions 

 - Proposed Federal Rules for VOC, NOx and PM Reductions 

 - Canadian Air Quality Efforts 

 - Governor Spitzer’s “15 by 15” Initiative 

 - NYSERDA Programs 

As discussed in section 7.1 of this document, the species composition of 

PM2.5 has a significant influence on the measured levels. In terms of 

species composition, SO4 and OC (the primary sources of which are 

VOC emissions) are the most important species, especially during the 

summer months, while NO3 is also an important species during the 

winter months. It appears that emissions control programs that target 

precursors of SO4, NO3, and OC will be needed to further reduce PM2.5

levels across the metropolitan area. The measures described below will 

reduce PM and precursor emissions by significant amounts. The Part 

222 and Subpart 227-2 regulations being adopted by the Department 

will yield quantifiable, enforceable NOx emissions reductions on the 

order of 50 tons per day. When compared to those measures included 

in the modeling and the base and projected NOx inventories, it is 

apparent that reductions of this magnitude have the ability to reduce 

PM2.5 levels substantially. Given that New Jersey and Connecticut as 

well as other northeastern states (Delaware, Maryland and 

Pennsylvania) are committing to similar measures that will also yield 

substantial reductions in PM2.5 and precursor emissions, it is expected 

that NOx and PM2.5 emissions on days of high electricity demand will 

be reduced substantially throughout the Northeast corridor. 

7.5.1 Part 222, Distributed Generation 

This regulation will set limits on small generators that are not currently 

controlled. As minor sources, these sources need only to stay below 

the major source threshold to avoid reasonably available control 

technology (RACT). Most of these sources (generally diesel-fired 

stationary internal combustion engines) tend to operate on days of high 

electricity demand and when called upon to address reliability concerns. 

This regulation will place NOx and PM limits on existing sources as well 

as restrict the number of megawatts that can be called to operate under 

demand response. It will also set strict emission standards for new 

units. It is expected that NOx emissions on High Electricity Demand 

Days (HEDD) could be reduced by 10 to 15 tons per day in 2012 

through the implementation of this regulation. 

7.5.2 NOx RACT (High Electricity Demand Day Units) 
7-13

This regulatory revision will set new more stringent NOx limits on 

electricity generating units. On High Electricity Demand Days (HEDD) 

base loaded, load following and peaking units all increase operations to 

meet demand. HEDDs are generally those days when the potential for 

ozone formation is highest (hazy, hot and humid weather). The 

Department is specifically moving to revise the NOx emission limits for 

all very large boilers and combustion turbines. These emission limits 

are expected to result in the reduction of 35 to 40 tons per day of NOx 

emissions. 

7.5.3 Clean Air Interstate Rule 

On May 12, 2005, EPA published its Clean Air Interstate Rule (70 FR 

25162) designed to reduce northeastern U.S. power plant emissions 

which affect air quality in downwind states. Because New York State 

contributes to ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas in downwind 

states, it was required to address NOx and SO2 emissions under CAIR. 

CAIR specified the reductions necessary in order to fulfill its obligations 

under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D), and established budgets for EGUs in 

New York and the other CAIR states. 

The CAIR Trading Program was established in three parts under Title 6 

which establish the necessary allowance programs for New York State: 

Part 243, “CAIR NOx Ozone Season Trading Program; Part 244, “CAIR 

NOx Annual Trading Program; and Part 245, “CAIR SO2 Trading 

Program.” These three regulations represent the three model rules 

released by EPA in association with CAIR which the Department chose 

to adopt. 

All three regulations were effective October 19, 2007. Within the 

regulations, CAIR NOx units and CAIR SO2 units are defined. Also 

included are permit and monitoring requirements, emission 

requirements pertaining to allowances, and guidelines for recordkeeping 

and reporting. 

EPA’s CAIR Program set the goal of 70 percent SO2 and NOx 

emissions reductions. Aside from the intended goal of aiding the 

nonattainment areas in downwind states, these reductions through 

CAIR will greatly benefit PM2.5 levels within New York State. This 

includes a reduction of PM2.5 levels in the NYMA nonattainment area 

due to decreased SO2 and NOx emissions by upwind facilities. The 

NOx portion of the trading program will go into effect in 2009, while the 

SO2 trading program goes into effect in 2010. 
7-14

7.5.4 Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2006 

The New York State Senate recently approved the Diesel Emissions 

Reduction Act of 2006, for which rulemaking is currently underway. 

This regulation will require thousands of state-owned or -operated 

diesel-powered vehicles to be retrofitted with emission control 

equipment to cut down on the release of exhaust particles, of which a 

large percentage is direct PM emissions. The benefit will be seen with 

existing engines which are not expected to be replaced with new, 

cleaner engines for some time. Promulgation of this regulation is 

currently anticipated to be completed in time to see some reductions in 

2009, which will contribute to the attainment of the PM NAAQS. 

7.5.4 Existing State VOC Reduction Measures 

7.5.4.1 Part 230: Gasoline Dispensing Sites and Transport Vehicles 

Requirements for Stage I and Stage II gasoline dispensing sites are 

contained in 6 NYCRR Part 230, "Gasoline Dispensing Sites and 

Transport Vehicles." Stage I systems are required state-wide, while 

Stage II systems are mandated only in the New York Metropolitan Area 

(NYMA) and lower Orange County. Part 230 affects those gasolinedispensing sites whose annual throughput exceeds 120,000 gallons. 

(This minimum throughput level is waived for NYMA.) 

A Stage I vapor collection system captures gasoline vapors which are 

displaced from underground gasoline storage tanks when those tanks 

are filled. These vapors are forced into a vapor-tight gasoline transport 

vehicle or vapor control system through direct displacement by the 

gasoline being loaded. A Stage II vapor collection system captures at 

least 90 percent, by weight, of the gasoline vapors that are displaced or 

drawn from a vehicle fuel tank during refueling; these vapors are then 

captured and either retained in the storage tanks or destroyed in an 

emission control device. 

7.5.4.2 Part 212: General Process Emission Sources 

This rule, which applies to both VOC and NOx emissions, requires the 

application of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 

each emission point which emits NOx for major NOx facilities or VOCs 

for major VOC facilities. Its requirements are mostly generic, with 

specific requirements only for coating operations not subject to Part 228. 

7.5.4.3 Part 226: Solvent Metal Cleaning 
7-15

Guidelines for the cleaning of metal surfaces by VOC-containing 

substances are expressed in 6 NYCRR Part 226, "Solvent Metal 

Cleaning Processes." Listed in this regulation are general provisions for 

storage and recordkeeping, specifications for the types of control 

equipment to be used, and operating practices for solvent metal 

cleaning. The Department may accept a lesser degree of control upon 

submission of satisfactory evidence that the person engaging in solvent 

metal cleaning is applying RACT and has a plan to develop the 

technologies necessary to comply with the aforementioned 

requirements. 

7.5.4.4 Part 228: Surface Coating Processes 

6 NYCRR Part 228 limits the VOC content for each gallon of coating 

and sets minimum efficiency for VOC incinerators used as control 

equipment for VOC emissions from coating processes. It also provides 

for the use of source-specific analyses of control requirements where 

the requirements of the rules cannot be met. Additionally, Part 228 

contains requirements for paints and coatings used in auto body 

refinishing and repairing, including spray equipment and housekeeping.

 

7.5.4.5 Part 229: Petroleum and Volatile Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer 

Limitations are placed on VOC emissions from applicable gasoline bulk 

plants, gasoline loading terminals, marine loading vessels, petroleum 

liquid storage tanks, and organic liquid storage tanks in 6 NYCRR Part 

229, "Petroleum and Volatile Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer." The 

regulation details the separate applicability thresholds and compliance 

schedules for NYMA, the Lower Orange County metropolitan area, 

upstate ozone non-attainment areas, and remaining areas. 

7.5.4.6 Part 233: Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Manufacturing Processes 

VOC emissions from synthesized pharmaceutical or cosmetic 

manufacturing processes at a major source facility are limited under 6 

NYCRR Part 233, "Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Manufacturing 

Processes." This regulation outlines the separate requirements and 

compliance schedules for NYMA, the Lower Orange County 

metropolitan area, and facilities outside these areas. Compliance 

requires the installation of control devices, along with monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and leak repair. 
7-16

7.5.4.7 Part 205: Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings 

Applicability of 6 NYCRR Part 205, "Architectural and Industrial 

Maintenance (AIM) Coatings," extends to anyone who supplies, sells, 

offers for sale, or manufactures any architectural coating for use within 

New York State, as well as anyone who applies or solicits the 

application of any architectural coating within the state. This regulation 

places VOC content limits on a wide variety of architectural coatings. 

Part 205 also contains labeling and reporting requirements, compliance 

provisions and test methods. 

7.5.4.8 Part 208: Landfill Gas Collection & Control Systems for Certain 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

The operation of certain municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills is 

regulated under 6 NYCRR Part 208, "Landfill Gas Collection & Control 

Systems for Certain Municipal Solid Waste Landfills." For landfills 

whose non-methane hydrocarbon emissions exceed 50 megagrams per 

year, the operator must design and install a collection and control 

system to be operated in accordance with the provisions of the 

regulation. The regulation additionally contains requirements for 

monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting. 

7.5.5 New or Revised State VOC Reduction Measures 

7.5.5.1 Part 228: Surface Coating Processes and Part 235: Consumer 

Products 

As a method to combat ozone issues in nonattainment areas throughout 

New York State, the Department worked in conjunction with the Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC) on measures to reduce NOx and VOC 

emissions from a number of sources. In 2006 the OTC released its 

model rule for VOC emissions from adhesives, sealants, adhesive 

primers and sealant primers. The Department intends to use this model 

rule as a guide in revising 6 NYCRR Part 228, "Surface Coating 

Processes," and Part 235, "Consumer Products." Emission reductions 

should be observed for area sources as well as point sources, due to 

the variety of industrial and commercial applications for the subject 

products. 

EPA's consumer and commercial products rule was published 

September 11, 1998 (40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D). This rule applied only 

to household adhesive use, and did not regulate adhesives used in 

commercial and industrial applications. The OTC's 2001 model rule 
7-17

proposed additional product categories and stricter standards, but its 

definitions of products generally exempted those products being sold in 

large containers. 

The OTC 2006 model rule, based upon 1998 RACT and Best Available 

Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) developments by CARB, places 

stricter VOC limits on a greater range of products. The proposed rule 

prohibits the sale or use of adhesives, sealants, adhesive primers or 

sealant primers in excess of its proposed VOC content limits after 

January 1, 2009. It also requires that labels have the product's VOC 

content clearly expressed, and presents an option for add-on control 

systems to meet the required content limit. OTC calculations predict 

that New York State will see a savings of 21.5 tons of VOC each 

summer day, or 3290 tons over the entire 153-day ozone season lasting 

from May 1-September 30. 

7.5.5.2 Part 235: Consumer Products 

The Department is intending to modify 6 NYCRR Part 235, "Consumer 

Products," under which a VOC content limit is placed on a range of 

consumer and commercial products. A federal consumer and 

commercial products rule was published on September 11, 1998 as 40 

CFR Part 59 Subpart D. Feeling this rule regulated an inadequate 

portion of the consumer and commercial products inventory, the OTC in 

2001 developed model regulations for additional product categories and 

more stringent VOC limits. These suggestions were used as a basis for 

the VOC limits contained in Part 235, which took effect on January 1, 

2005. 

The OTC developed its 2006 model rule, finalized September 13, 2006, 

to again expand the VOC content limitations that participating states 

may adopt for their own programs. Included are limits for 13 new 

product categories, a more restrictive limit on one previously regulated 

category, and additional requirements for two other previously regulated 

categories. The OTC rule is influenced by amendments put forth by 

CARB in July 2005. The Department will again use the OTC's proposed 

model rule as a guideline for its amendment of Part 235. 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) calculated per capita VOC 

reductions in conjunction with its 2005 rule. Because the proposed rule 

mirrors that of CARB so closely, it is assumed that a similar per capita 

savings will result, which equates to a yearly reduction of 0.122 

lb/capita. These reductions come in addition to the 6.06 lb/capita 

witnessed from the 2001 model rule. Adoption and implementation of 
7-18

the OTC 2006 model rule will result in VOC emissions reductions of 3.7 

tons per summer day and 566 tons over the ozone season in New York 

State in 2009. CARB estimated the average cost effectiveness of these 

amendments to be $4,000 per ton VOC reduced. 

7.5.5.3 Part 234: Graphic Arts 

Amendments are being made to the graphic arts industry regulations 

under 6 NYCRR Part 234, "Graphic Arts." These amendments are in 

response to two Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) documents 

published by the EPA in September 2006: "Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing" and "Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing." 

CAA Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for non-attainment areas 

designated moderate or worse, RACT provisions must be included in 

the applicable SIP for "each category of VOC sources in the area 

covered by a CTG document issued by the Administrator between the 

date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the 

date of attainment." These CTGs present guidance in determining 

RACT for VOC emissions from inks, coatings, adhesives and cleaning 

materials within facilities that conduct the aforementioned printing 

processes. The Department will use the CTG emission limit and control 

technology recommendations for flexible package printing, offset 

lithographic printing, and letterpress printing in its revisions to Part 234. 

Cost analyses were performed by the EPA, for which details can be 

found in the CTG documents. These calculations included equipment, 

instrument and installation costs, as well as estimations of labor, 

maintenance, utility, and overhead costs. For flexible package printing, 

a catalytic oxidizer was analyzed under different operating scenarios, 

leading to estimated costs of $1,300-$5,700 per ton VOC removed. 

Lithographic and letterpress printing presses will see estimated costs of 

$2,010 per ton of VOC removed by controls on heatset inks; costs of 

$855/ton for cleaning materials; and an actual savings due to alcohol 

substitutes in fountain solutions. Consumers are not expected to incur 

any significant price increases. 

7.5.5.4 Part 239: Portable Fuel Containers 

EPA recently finalized the rule, "Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants 

From Mobile Sources" (72 FR 8427). The Department is planning to 

use this federal rule as a basis for amending the existing 6 NYCRR Part 

239, "Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control." 
7-19

With this federal rule, EPA sets regulations for portable fuel containers 

(PFCs), as well as for gasoline and passenger vehicles. The purpose is 

to significantly reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants from mobile 

sources, referred to as "mobile source air toxics" (MSATs), to which 

exposure is known or suspected to cause serious health effects, 

including cancer. The PFC controls will considerably reduce such 

MSATs as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 

acrolein, and naphthalene, in addition to the secondary PM reductions. 

Since the Department issued Part 239 in October 2002, a number of 

problems have been identified, as follows: 

$ An automatic shutoff feature, intended to cut off fuel flow when the 

tank reaches a prescribed level, has proven to be incompatible with 

many types of fuel tanks. This leads to additional spillage and has 

frustrated many consumers; 

$ Poor production quality of the PFCs, as demonstrated by a CARB 

compliance test resulting in nearly 50 percent failure of PFCs that 

have already been introduced to the market; and 

$ Storage of gasoline in non-regulated containers designed for other 

fluids, such as kerosene. 

As a result of these issues, emissions will still be lost due to evaporation 

through the diurnal cycle, as well as through spillage. The federal rule 

contains methods considered "best available controls" to correct these 

problems. The anticipated modifications to Part 239 will: 

$ Eliminate the existing automatic shutoff feature, fill height and flow 

rate standards to simplify fueling and lessen spillage; 

$ Require certification and compliance of PFCs prior to their 

introduction to the market; and 

$ Expand the definition of a non-compliant container, effectively 

regulating diesel and kerosene containers in the same manner as 

PFCs 

Along with these modifications, EPA has issued a standard of 0.3 grams 

per gallon per day (g/gal/day) of hydrocarbons. This standard was 

established based upon the emissions from a can over a diurnal test 

cycle, and requires stringent compliance testing to ensure emissions 
7-20

control over the life of the product. This standard must be met for 

containers manufactured on or after January 1, 2009. These new 

requirements will reduce hydrocarbon emissions from uncontrolled fuel 

containers by approximately 75 percent. 

Both area and non-road source inventories are expected to be affected 

by these amendments. Of the projected VOC emission reductions, 

approximately 70 percent will be attributed to the area source inventory. 

These changes come from reductions in diurnal and permeation 

emissions from storage, and transport/spillage emissions from re-fueling 

at gas pumps. The remaining 30 percent will be accounted for in the 

non-road source inventory, where emissions will be reduced during refueling of non-road sources (e.g. lawnmowers, personal watercraft, 

etc.). 

7.5.5.5 Part 241: Asphalt Formulation 

The Department is considering changes to the use of cutback and 

emulsified asphalts in paving operations. The proposed ban on cutback 

asphalts and increased restrictions on emulsified asphalts will be made 

in 6 NYCRR Part 241, "Asphalt Formulation." 

While cutback and emulsified asphalts are used in similar applications, 

they differ in how they are prepared. In preparing cutback asphalt, 

asphalt cement is blended with a diluent that is typically 25 to 45 percent 

by volume petroleum distillate. Emulsified asphalt preparation involves 

mixing asphalt cement with water and an emulsifying agent, such as 

soap. It is possible for emulsified asphalts to contain no VOCs, though 

some may contain up to 12 percent VOC by volume. 

Currently, New York permits the use of cutback asphalt only during the 

cooler portion of the year from October 16 to May 1, and allows for 

emulsified asphalt to contain 2 to 12 percent VOCs, depending on the 

grade established by the American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM). This proposed rule will have a similar, ozone-season ban on 

cutback asphalt; and will also limit the use of emulsified asphalt to that 

which contains not more than 0.5mL oil distillate from a 200mL 

sample—effectively 0.25 percent VOC content. Certain exemptions 

when necessary may be granted by the State Commissioner. 

In calculating reductions resulting from these anticipated rule changes, 

an average baseline VOC content of 2.5 percent for emulsified asphalt 

was assumed. Thus, reducing the average VOC content from 2.5 

percent to 0.25 percent represents a 90 percent reduction in emissions. 
7-21

This would lead to a projected savings of 16.5 tons VOC per summer 

day, or 2525 tons per ozone season for New York State in 2009. It is 

believed that no additional costs would be incurred from the use of lowVOC emulsified asphalts due to their current availability. 

7.5.6 Federal VOC Measures 

7.5.6.1 VOC MACT 

Pursuant to Section 112 of the CAA, the EPA is required to promulgate 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), 

otherwise known as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

standards for chemicals known to cause cancer or other serious health 

effects. As EPA updates or releases new MACT standards, they are 

incorporated by reference into 6 NYCRR Part 200. Many of the 

chemical substances regulated as VOCs are also listed as HAPs. 

Therefore, many of the MACT control requirements effectively reduce 

emissions of VOCs as well. 

7.5.6.2 Federal Reformulated Gasoline 

Section 211(k) of the CAA deemed that reformulated gasoline, which is 

blended to burn cleaner and reduce emissions of certain pollutants, 

must be sold in major metropolitan areas with the worst ozone air 

pollution problems. Federal reformulated gasoline allows for a maximum 

of 1 percent benzene by volume. Phase I of the rule took effect January 

1, 1995 with preliminary VOC and air toxics standards. These 

reformulated gasoline standards were replaced with Phase II standards, 

effective January 1, 2000, which called for broader emissions controls, 

requiring 25 to 29 percent VOC emission reductions and 20 to 22 

percent air toxics reductions. Retail distribution of reformulated gasoline 

is required in the New York Metropolitan Area and Orange County. 

Dutchess County and a portion of Essex County have voluntarily opted 

to use reformulated gasoline. 

7.5.7 Proposed Federal Rules 

7.5.7.1 Aerosol Coatings Proposed Rule 

On July 16, 2007, EPA published its proposed rule titled “National 

Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings” 
7-22

(72 FR 38952). The proposed rule will apply to manufacturers, 

processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of aerosol coatings 

used by the general public and in industrial applications. The proposed 

rule will also apply to distributors who are responsible for labeling of 

aerosol products. 

While traditional VOC limits were based on the weight of VOC 

ingredients per weight or volume of product, the proposed rule 

implements a standard based upon the rate of ozone production of the 

VOC components, expressed in terms of weight of ozone generated 

from the VOC ingredients per weight of coating material. The proposed 

regulatory limits are a series of reactivity limits for six general coating 

categories and 30 subcategories of specialty coatings, expressed in 

terms of mass of ozone generation per gram of product. 

The proposed rule requires all regulated entities to comply by January 1, 

2009. Temporary variances may be granted to entities are unable to 

comply with the proposed requirements. The proposed rule also 

requires certain labeling, recordkeeping and reporting measures. EPA 

believes nationwide emissions of VOCs from aerosol products would be 

reduced by 18 to 19.4 percent from the 1990 baseline value (88.3 tons). 

 

7.5.7.2 Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines 

Proposed Rule 

Locomotives and marine diesel engines are important contributors to the 

nation’s air pollution, as they emit large amounts of direct PM and NOx. 

In 2007, these engines accounted for approximately 20 percent of 

mobile source NOx and 25 percent of mobile source diesel PM2.5 

emissions. EPA published its proposed rule, “Control of Emissions of 

Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and Marine CompressionIgnition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder” on April 3, 2007 (72 

FR 15938) to dramatically reduce emissions from these engines. It 

would set new exhaust emission standards on all types of locomotive 

engines, and on all types of marine diesel engines below 30 liters per 

cylinder displacement. 

This proposed program includes a set of near-term emission standards 

for newly-built engines, which would begin to be phased in starting 

2009, and for existing locomotives, which would take effect as soon as 
7-23

2008 but no later than 2010 (2013 for Tier 2 locomotives)–as soon as 

certified remanufacture systems are available. Further long-term 

standards would be phased in over time, starting in 2014. Provisions 

are also being proposed to reduce unnecessary locomotive engine 

idling. Compared to engines meeting current standards, these stricter 

requirements would ultimately result in estimated PM reductions of 90 

percent and NOx reductions of 80 percent. In addition to PM and NOx 

reductions, the proposed standards would effectively reduce 

nonmethane hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and air toxics. 

7.5.7.3 Federal Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines/Equipment Proposed Rule 

EPA has proposed emission standards for spark-ignition engines used in 

marine vessels, including outboard engines, personal watercraft, and 

sterndrive/inboard engines in their proposed rule, “Control of Emissions from 

Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment” (72 FR 28098). 

The engines and vehicles covered by this proposal are significant sources of 

air pollution. They account for about 25 percent of mobile source hydrocarbon 

emissions and 30 percent of mobile source carbon monoxide emissions. 

The proposed standards continue the process of establishing nonroad 

standards as required by the Clean Air Act. EPA is required to study emissions 

from nonroad engines and vehicles and to set emissions standards if the level 

of pollutants from these sources cause or significantly contribute to air pollution 

and, more specifically, if the emissions of CO, NOx or hydrocarbons contribute 

significantly to the formation of ozone and carbon monoxide in more than one 

area of the country currently not meeting ozone and carbon monoxide 

standards. 

EPA has proposed a more stringent level of emission standards for outboard 

and personal watercraft engines starting with the 2009 model year. The 

proposed standards for engines above 40 kW are 16 g/kW-hr for HC+NOx and 

200 g/kW-hr for CO. For engines below 40 kW, the standards increase 

gradually based on the engine's maximum power. It is expected that 

manufacturers will meet these standards with improved fueling systems and 

other in-cylinder controls. The levels of the standards are consistent with the 

requirements recently adopted by California ARB with the advantage of a 

simplified form of the standard for different power ratings and with a CO 

standard. 
7-24

EPA has also proposed new exhaust emission standards for sterndrive and 

inboard marine engines. The proposed standards are 5 g/kW-hr for HC+NOx 

and 75 g/kW-hr for CO starting with the 2009 model year. Manufacturers are 

expected to meet these standards with three-way catalysts and closed-loop 

fuel injection. To ensure proper functioning of these emission control systems 

in use, a requirement is proposed that engines have a diagnostic system for 

detecting a failure in the emission control system. For sterndrive and inboard 

marine engines above 373 kW with high-performance characteristics (generally 

referred to as "SD/I high-performance engines"), a CO standard of 350 g/kW-hr 

is being proposed. EPA is also proposing a variety of other special provisions 

for these engines to reflect unique operating characteristics and to make it 

feasible to meet emission standards using emission credits. These standards 

are consistent with the requirements recently adopted by California ARB, with 

some adjustment to the provisions for SD/I high-performance engines and with 

a CO standard. 

The emission standards described above relate to engine operation over a 

prescribed duty cycle for testing in the laboratory. Also proposed are “not-toexceed” standards that require manufacturers to maintain a certain level of 

emission control when engines operate under normal speed-load combinations 

that are not included in the certification duty cycle. 

EPA is also proposing new standards to control evaporative emissions for all 

vessels using marine spark-ignition engines. The new standards include 

requirements to control fuel tank permeation, fuel line permeation, and diurnal 

emissions, including provisions to ensure that refueling emissions do not 

increase. 

When fully implemented, the proposed standards would result in a 70 percent 

reduction in HC+NOx emissions, and a 20 percent reduction in CO from new 

engines’ exhaust. The proposed standards would result in a 70 percent 

reduction in evaporative emissions. 

EPA estimates that by 2030, the proposed standards would result in significant 

annual reductions of pollutant emissions from regulated engine and equipment 

sources nationwide, including 630,000 tons of volatile organic hydrocarbon 

emissions, 98,000 tons of NOx emissions, and 6,300 tons of direct particulate 

matter (PM2.5) emissions. These reductions correspond to significant 

reductions in the formation of ground-level ozone and ambient PM2.5. In 

addition, these measures are expected to result in annual reductions of 2.7 

million tons of carbon monoxide emissions, with the greatest reductions in 
7-25

areas where there have been problems with individual exposures.

7.5.8 **This section was removed by NY**
7-26

7.5.9 Canadian Emission Reductions 

Some portion of the particulate matter present in the air in the northern 

United States originates in 

Canada. The sources of this 

contamination are the industrial 

and commercial operations, fossil 

fuel and woodburning and 

especially the emissions of 

particulate matter and its 

precursors from coal-fired power 

plants A number of initiatives 

have been put in place in Canada 

that will reduce emissions and 

have a positive effect in the air 

quality in the northeast United 

States. 

The first of these are the Canada-Wide Standards for Mercury Emissions 

from Coal-Fired Electric Power Generation Plants. Under these 

provisions, a reduction of approximately 52% to 58% in mercury emissions 

is expected nationally by 2010. The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) has 

been directed to replace Ontario’s coal-fired generation facilities by 

cleaner sources “in the earliest practical time frame that ensures adequate 

generating capacity and electricity system reliability in Ontario.” The 

reduction in mercury emissions is expected to have the co-benefit of the 

reduction of the emission of other pollutants as well, including particulate 

and its precursors (SO2 and NOx), organics, metals and greenhouse 

gases. The replacement of coal-fired units in Ontario, which are most 

likely to affect New York’s air quality, will have a significant effect on 

ambient particulate concentrations and haze. 

The second initiative in Canada that will affect New York’s air quality is the 

promulgation of air quality standards for PM2.5 and ozone at a level of 

30ug/m3 on a 24-hour basis and 65 ppb on an 8-hour basis, respectively. 

The intention is to meet these standards by 2010, and the result of which 

will have a positive effect on New York’s air quality as well. Quebec’s fiveyear report on their reduction efforts to date discusses the measures taken 

from 2001 to 20051

. The control measures instituted by Canada are 

 

1

http://www.menv.gouv.qc.ca/air/particules_ozone/rapport_quin-en.pdf
7-27

aimed at reducing industrial emissions. Specifically, regulations like 

Quebec's "Regulation respecting the quality of the atmosphere"2

 contain 

control measures for new and existing sources of VOC's similar to those in 

New York and other states, and set ambient air quality standards. VOC 

controls address surface coating processes, automotive painting 

operations, printing, dry cleaning, formaldehyde from panelboard mills, 

pulp and paper operations, styrene from composite material 

manufacturing (fiberglass and resins), and transportation. Particulate 

emissions measures include the control of fugitive emissions from mining 

and sandblasting, granaries, mills, distilleries, breweries, powder milk 

plants, fertilizer mixing plants, concrete plants, vitreous enamel 

operations, earthenware and ceramic products plant, polyvinyl chloride 

production or processing plant, wood processing plants, and aluminum 

manufacturing. Programs also control particulate and NOx emissions 

from combustion operations (boilers, turbines, and internal combustion), 

as well as fuel sulfur content (2.0% by weight for "heavy oil," 1.0% by 

weight for "intermediate oil," 0.5% by weight for "light oil," and 2.0% in 

weight for coal). Many other categories are covered as well woodburning, 

smelting, charcoal kilns, incinerators, refineries, storage tanks, metallic 

processing plants, as well as other industrial processes. 

Additional measures are planned in the next five years to achieve their 

goals by 2010, including reducing emissions from residential wood 

heating, establishing and inspection and maintenance program for light 

vehicles, and implementing "other measures in the transportation, energy 

and climate change sectors." 

The above measures are efforts by the Canadian or Provincial 

governments to improve air quality. They were not included in the present 

attainment demonstration and will not be enforceable by New York or the 

federal government. However, give the proximity to New York State, air 

quality improvements in Canada will certainly impact New York and the 

northeastern United States. 

7.5.10 New York State’s “15 by 15" Program 

New York Governor Spitzer has initiated a clean energy plan with the goal 

 

2

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?t

ype=3&file=/Q_2/Q2R20_A.htm
7-28

of reducing New York's energy demand by 15% by 

2015. The plan, known as "15 by 15," focuses on 

energy efficiency, conservation, and investment in 

renewable energy sources as the keys to achieving 

economic and environmental goals. The specific 

goals and highlights of the plan include: 

$ Reduce electricity use by 15 percent from forecasted levels by the year 

2015 through new energy efficiency programs in industry and government; 

$ Eliminate incentives in the marketplace that discourages utilities from 

conserving energy by requiring annual adjustments to rates to make 

utilities whole for lost revenues caused by energy efficiency programs. 

$ The approval of 21 contract awards by state agencies for clean, 

renewable power plants upstate that will replace older plants. 

$ Establish new appliance efficiency standards and set more rigorous 

energy building codes; 

$ Invest $295 million for renewable energy projects throughout the state; 

and 

$ Propose power plant siting legislation that creates an expedited review 

process for new wind power projects, repowering projects that reduce 

emissions, and other power plants that have very low levels of carbon 

dioxide emissions. 

The benefits of this plan for New York and for the environment include a 

reduction in the electricity that must be purchased, the creation of new 

jobs, and a reduction in emissions as a result of the need to produce less 

power and the substitution of clean power sources for those already in 

operation. The emission reductions for the “15 by 15" plan are also 

estimated to result in an annual carbon dioxide reduction of about 12.8 

million tons, which is the equivalent of removing 2.5 million cars from the 

road. 

The Department is not committing to the inclusion of any of these 

measures as part of the SIP at this time, The 

Department will evaluate each measure 

resulting from this initiative individually to 

determine if it is appropriate to be included in 

the SIP. The Department will need to consider 

among other things whether the measure is 
7-29

quantifiable, enforceable, and include 

emissions reductions that are additional to 

other adopted SIP measures. 

7.5.11 NYSERDA Programs 

 

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 

(NYSERDA) was established in 1975 and is primarily funded by state rate 

payers through the System Benefits Charge (SBC). The SBC has recently 

been extended through June 30, 2011. NYSERDA has introduced a 

number of programs and services to promote energy efficiency amongst 

the industrial, commercial, municipal, and residential sectors throughout 

the state, for which they provide technical and financial assistance. 

One initiative that has seen success is the New York Energy $mart 

Program. NYSERDA has allocated funding towards energy efficiency 

programs, low-income energy affordability programs, and research and 

development projects with focuses on renewable resources, distributed 

generation, and combined heat and power installations. In the last five 

years, the New York Energy $mart Program has created a wealth of 

economic and environmental benefits3

: 

$ Approximately $198 million in annual energy savings 

$ 1,400 Gwh saved per year 

$ 860 MW in reduced demand 

$ Fuel savings of 3.3 Tbtu 

$ Annual carbon dioxide reduction equivalent to 200,000 fewer cars 

$ Significant annual greenhouse gas emission reductions: 

 Nitrogen Oxides - 1,280 tons 

Sulfur Dioxides - 2,320 tons 

Carbon Dioxide - 1,000,000 tons 

In addition to Energy $mart, there are many other programs which result in 

reductions of emissions of PM and its precursors. For example, the PeakLoad Reduction Program offers incentives to offset costs to companies 

 

3

http://www.nyserda.org/ny_energy_smart.asp
7-30

that implement either short-term demand response measures, or longterm permanent demand reduction, for days in which electric demand is 

very high. The Enhanced Commercial/Industrial Performance Program 

contains three tiers of incentives for the installation of energy-efficient 

equipment resulting in reduced electrical demand and cost. A wide range 

of businesses, schools, universities, state and local governments, and 

other institutions are eligible for these incentives. And, NYSERDA’s 

Alternative-Fuel Vehicle Program aims to encourage fleets to purchase 

vehicles powered by natural gas, propane, biofuels, and electricity, and to 

encourage the use of emission reduction technologies and anti-idling 

technologies for diesel vehicles. 
7-31

Table 7-1. Listing of FRM sites, 1999-2006. Some locations have primary (“P”) 

and duplicate (“D”) samplers. Dates with an asterix denote daily sampling for at 

least part of the period. 

NYSDEC 

Region Site Name County Dates

1 Eisenhower Park Nassau 1/1999 – 12/1999 

1 Hempstead Nassau 1/1999 – 12/2006 

1 Briarcliffe Nassau 2/2000 – 3/2003 

1 Roslyn Nassau 7/2000 – 3/2003 

1 Roslyn Heights Nassau 1/1999 – 3/2000 

1 Babylon Suffolk 1/1999 – 12/2006 

2 Mabel Dean H.S. New York 1/1999 – 6/2001* 

2 J.H.S. 45 New York 

P: 1/2000 – 12/2006 

D: 1/2006 – 12/2006 

2 P.S. 59 New York 

P: 1/1999 – 12/2006 

D: 1/1999 – 12/2005 

2 P.S. 19 New York 10/2001 – 12/2006 

2 Canal Street Post Office New York 

P: 1/1999 – 12/2006 

D: 8/1999 – 9/2001 

2 I.S. 155 Bronx 

P: 1/1999 – 7/1999 

D: 1/1999 – 7/1999 

2 Morrisania II Bronx 1/1999 – 12/2006 

2 N.Y. Botanical Gardens Bronx 1/1999 – 12/2006 

2 I.S. 52 Bronx 

P: 9/1999 – 12/2006* 

D: 9/1999 – 12/2006 

2 Greenpoint Kings 

P: 1/1999 – 12/2000 

D: 1/1999 – 7/1999 

2 P.S. 321 Kings 1/1999 – 3/2003 

2 P.S. 314 Kings 4/2000 – 1/2003 

2 J.H.S. 126 Kings 1/2001 – 12/2006 
7-32

2 Queensboro Community College Queens 1/1999 – 12/2000 

2 P.S. 29 Queens 

P: 7/1999 – 1/2003 

D: 8/1999 – 1/2003 

2 P.S. 214 Queens 4/2000 – 3/2003 

2 Queens College II/P.S. 219 Queens 1/2001 – 4/2006* 

2 Susan Wagner H.S. Richmond 1/1999 – 12/2006 

2 Port Richmond Post Office Richmond 12/1999 – 12/2006 

3 Poughkeepsie Dutchess 7/1999 – 3/2003 

3 Newburgh Orange 2/2000 – 12/2006 

3 Mamaroneck Westchester 2/2000 – 12/2006 
7-33

Table 7-2. Trends in PM2.5 mass at the longest running FRM monitors, based on 

quarterly averages from 1999-2006, in mg m-3 yr-1. Only those quarters with at 

least 10 valid samples are included in this trend estimate. 

Site Name Trend (ug/m3

/yr)

Hempstead -0.12 

Babylon -0.34 

J.H.S. 45 -0.42 

P.S. 59 -0.30 

Canal Street Post Office -0.50 

Morrisania II -0.27 

N.Y. Botanical Gardens -0.15 

I.S. 52 (P) -0.33 

I.S. 52 (D) -0.23 

Susan Wagner H.S. -0.13 

Port Richmond Post Office -0.20 

Newburgh -0.20 

Mamaroneck -0.20 
7-34

Figure 7-1 - Map of Downstate FRM Sites

Table 7-3. Listing of Speciation Trends Network (STN) sites, 2000-2006. All 

sites are located in NYSDEC Region 2. 

Site Name County Dates

Canal Street Post Office New York 8/2002 – 12/2006 

N.Y. Botanical Gardens Bronx 2/2000 – 12/2005 

I.S. 52 Bronx 1/2001 – 12/2006 

Queens College II/P.S. 219 Queens 4/2001 – 12/2006 

Figure 7-2 - Average PM2.5 Speciation – Annual, Winter, and Summer
7-35

Table 7-4. Listing of FRM sites, 1999-2006. Some locations have primary (“P”) 

and duplicate (“D”) samplers. Dates with an asterix denote daily sampling for at 

least part of the period. The New Haven/Stiles St. monitor was designated as 

“special purpose,” and is included here for completeness only (in italics). 

State AQS ID Site Name County Dates 

CT 090010010 Bridgeport/Roosevelt School Fairfield CT 

P: 1/1999 – 12/2006 

D: 1/1999 – 1/2003 

 090010113 Bridgeport/Edison School Fairfield CT 9/2000 – 12/2003 

 090011123 Danbury WCSU Fairfield CT 1/1999 – 12/2006 

 090012124 Stamford H.S. Fairfield CT 1/1999 – 12/2004 

 090013005 Norwalk Health Dept. Fairfield CT 3/2000 – 12/2006 

 090019003 Westport/Sherwood Island Fairfield CT 1/1999 – 12/2006 

090090018 New Haven/Stiles St. New Haven CT 

P: 1/1999 – 9/2005* 

D: 1/1999 – 1/2003 

090090026 New Haven/Woodward 

Firehouse 

New Haven CT 4/2003 – 12/2006 

090090027 New Haven/Criscuolo Park 

New Haven CT P: 1/2004 – 12/2006* 

D: 2/2005 – 12/2006 

090091123 New Haven/State St. 

New Haven CT P: 1/1999 – 12/2006 

D: 1/1999 – 2/2005 

 090092008 New Haven/Ag. Center New Haven CT 4/2003 – 12/2006 

090092123 Waterbury/Bank St. 

New Haven CT P: 1/1999 – 12/2006 

D: 1/1999 – 12/2006 

 090098003 West Haven Toll New Haven CT 4/2003 – 12/2004 

 090099005 Hamden Mill Basins New Haven CT 7/1999 – 12/2003 

 

NJ 340030003 Fort Lee Library Bergen NJ 1/1999 – 12/2006 

 340130011 Newark/St. Charles Essex NJ 1/1999 – 12/1999 

 340130015 Newark/Willis Center Essex NJ 4/1999 – 12/2006 

340130016 Newark Lab 

Essex NJ P: 8/2001 – 5/2003 

D: 8/2001 – 5/2003 

340171003 Jersey City Firehouse Hudson NJ 

P: 1/1999 – 12/2006 

D: 12/1999 – 12/2006 

340172002 Union City Hudson NJ 1/1999 – 3/2002, 

7/2005 – 12/2006 

 340210008 Trenton Mercer NJ 1/1999 – 12/2006 
7-36

 340218001 Washington Crossing Mercer NJ 1/1999 – 12/2006 

 340230006 New Brunswick Middlesex NJ 1/1999 – 12/2006 

340270004 Morristown Ambulance 

Squad Morris NJ 5/1999 – 12/2006 

 340273001 Chester Morris NJ 1/1999 – 12/2006 

 340310005 Paterson Passaic NJ 1/1999 – 12/2006 

340390004 Elizabeth Lab Union NJ 

P: 1/1999 – 12/2006* 

D: 1/1999 – 12/2006 

 340390006 Elizabeth/Mitchell Bldg. Union NJ 1/1999 – 12/2006 

 340392003 Rahway Union NJ 12/1999 – 12/2006* 
7-37

Table 7- 5. Annual average PM2.5 levels for sites with at least 75% valid samples 

in a given year, 2000-2006. Incomplete years are left blank. 

Site Name 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Bridgeport/Roosevelt School 

(P) 13.88 13.71 12.72 12.98 12.92 14.32 12.51

Bridgeport/Roosevelt School 

(D) 15.63 13.49 11.82 

Bridgeport/Edison School 12.77 12.88 12.27 

Danbury WCSU 12.70 13.22 12.51 13.37 11.25 13.44 12.17

Stamford H.S. 12.90 13.01 12.81 13.51 11.78 

Norwalk Health Dept. 12.86 13.41 12.58 12.96 12.23 13.32 11.77

Westport/Sherwood Island 13.03 12.15 11.49 11.63 11.06 12.18 10.69

New Haven/Stiles St. (P) 15.94 16.88 16.00 16.91 15.40 

New Haven/Stiles St. (D) 18.78 18.60 16.19 

New Haven/Woodward 

Firehouse 11.56 13.05 11.72

New Haven/Criscuolo Park 

(P) 12.21 13.62 12.21

New Haven/Criscuolo Park 

(D) 14.01 12.81

New Haven/State St. (P) 14.07 14.32 13.03 13.59 12.66 13.88 12.63

New Haven/State St. (D) 14.58 12.38 15.49 12.39 

New Haven/Ag. Center 11.14 11.73 10.76

Waterbury/Bank St. (P) 13.61 13.98 13.23 12.64 12.04 14.00 11.98

Waterbury/Bank St. (D) 14.82 14.21 12.75 14.09 11.97 14.14 12.26

West Haven Toll 12.91 

Hamden Mill Basins 11.49 11.88 11.09 12.29 

Fort Lee Library 14.57 13.85 12.99 13.34 12.05 14.65 11.82

Newark/Willis Center 15.60 13.06 13.16 13.84 13.17 14.35 12.12

Newark Lab (P) 14.12 

Newark Lab (D) 14.05 

Jersey City Firehouse (P) 16.78 14.01 14.34 14.81 13.66 15.10 13.35

Jersey City Firehouse (D) 13.99 16.26 12.93 16.07 14.67

Union City 17.08 15.54 13.83

Trenton 14.71 14.46 12.94 13.41 12.48 12.90 12.19
7-38

Washington Crossing 12.05 11.35 12.18 10.96 12.27 10.06

New Brunswick 13.00 12.72 11.12 12.91 11.11 13.33 10.77

Morristown Ambulance Squad 12.88 11.48 12.16 11.27 12.33 10.12

Chester 11.09 10.46 10.77 9.99 10.77 9.01 

Paterson 13.56 12.90 13.26 12.60 13.44 11.88

Elizabeth Lab (P) 15.53 14.56 15.96 15.08 15.24 14.16

Elizabeth Lab (D) 18.49 15.42 14.78 16.97 14.19 16.65 14.72

Elizabeth/Mitchell Bldg. 15.20 12.88 13.11 13.97 12.68 14.33 12.36

Rahway 14.10 12.77 12.04 13.24 12.53 13.91 11.92
7-39

Table 7-6. The 98th percentile of PM2.5 levels for sites with at least 75% valid 

samples in a given year, 2000-2006. Incomplete years are left blank. 

Site Name 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Bridgeport/Roosevelt School 

(P) 41.5 40.1 32.9 39.6 34.2 38.3 36.7 

Bridgeport/Roosevelt School 

(D) 42.8 40.6 34.0 

Bridgeport/Edison School 32.1 33.2 40.4 

Danbury WCSU 32.9 35.2 30.7 37.3 27.5 33.4 33.8 

Stamford H.S. 36.3 37.4 34.5 41.5 32.2 

Norwalk Health Dept. 35.3 35.7 34.3 42.9 35.2 34.9 35.9 

Westport/Sherwood Island 33.4 34.5 30.8 44.0 30.9 35.2 31.3 

New Haven/Stiles St. (P) 39.5 40.6 40.4 44.0 34.9 

New Haven/Stiles St. (D) 44.8 43.0 34.5 

New Haven/Woodward 

Firehouse 31.5 36.4 36.5 

New Haven/Criscuolo Park 

(P) 33.2 38.2 36.7 

New Haven/Criscuolo Park 

(D) 39.1 31.6 

New Haven/State St. (P) 37.2 39.5 32.4 40.6 36.2 40.8 38.1 

New Haven/State St. (D) 40.6 32.3 38.9 29.9 

New Haven/Ag. Center 32.1 32.8 33.9 

Waterbury/Bank St. (P) 34.4 35.4 32.6 37.7 30.4 34.1 35.6 

Waterbury/Bank St. (D) 36.0 34.9 33.5 32.8 26.1 35.9 35.2 

West Haven Toll 30.8 

Hamden Mill Basins 34.7 32.1 29.4 44.0 

Fort Lee Library 36.4 34.4 33.0 38.9 31.0 40.5 38.2 

Newark/Willis Center 41.6 32.1 32.3 39.8 34.9 40.4 39.9 

Newark Lab (P) 34.6 

Newark Lab (D) 39.9 

Jersey City Firehouse (P) 39.5 34.1 34.3 46.4 37.4 37.9 41.0 

Jersey City Firehouse (D) 36.8 41.1 29.1 38.3 38.9 

Union City 39.3 39.5 

Trenton 43.1 35.4 35.4 40.5 33.3 33.6 36.2 
7-40

Washington Crossing 31.5 32.2 34.9 28.0 33.0 29.5 

New Brunswick 34.5 34.1 26.0 45.0 35.5 33.8 32.8 

Morristown Ambulance Squad 30.2 29.7 36.8 31.1 32.9 30.4 

Chester 29.4 30.0 35.7 29.8 33.4 28.3 

Paterson 35.4 34.9 39.8 31.0 40.5 33.4 

Elizabeth Lab (P) 39.7 41.7 37.0 40.5 42.5 39.8 

Elizabeth Lab (D) 46.6 50.3 39.3 41.2 36.5 39.8 41.9 

Elizabeth/Mitchell Bldg. 36.0 33.8 30.0 40.9 33.1 38.6 38.7 

Rahway 38.0 30.4 31.1 35.2 36.6 38.2 37.5 
7-41

Table 7-7. Trends in PM2.5 mass at the longest running FRM monitors, based on 

quarterly averages from 1999-2006, in ug/m3

/yr. Only those quarters with at 

least 10 valid samples are included in this trend estimate. 

Site Name Trend (ug/m3//yr)

Bridgeport/Roosevelt School (P) -0.07 

Danbury WCSU -0.05 

Norwalk Health Dept. -0.18 

Westport/Sherwood Island -0.19 

New Haven/Stiles St. (P) +0.02 

New Haven/State St. (P) -0.19 

New Haven/State St. (D) -0.32 

Waterbury/Bank St. (P) -0.16 

Waterbury/Bank St. (D) -0.13 

Fort Lee Library -0.25 

Newark/Willis Center -0.37 

Jersey City Firehouse (P) -0.34 

Jersey City Firehouse (D) -0.25 

Trenton -0.27 

Washington Crossing -0.14 

New Brunswick -0.11 

Morristown Ambulance Squad -0.49 

Chester -0.21 

Paterson -0.06 

Elizabeth Lab (P) -0.27 

Elizabeth Lab (D) -0.43 

Elizabeth/Mitchell Bldg. -0.30 

Rahway -0.15 
7-42

Table 7-8. Third quarter 2002 average PM2.5 values at the NY and NJ FRM 

monitors in the NYC NAA, both including and excluding the flagged data from 

July 2002.

FRM site County, State 

3rd Quarter 2002 

Average PM2.5, 

ug/m3 (include 

flagged days) 

3rd Quarter 2002 

Average PM2.5, 

ug/m3 

(exclude flagged 

days)

340030003 Bergen County, NJ 16.05 13.99 

340171003 Hudson County, NJ 16.83 14.68 

340210008 Mercer County, NJ 17.99 15.03 

340218001 Mercer County, NJ 16.71 14.74 

340230006 Middlesex County, NJ 16.60 13.84 

340270004 Morris County, NJ 16.84 14.49 

340273001 Morris County, NJ 16.14 13.63 

340310005 Passaic County, NJ 16.50 14.43 

340390004 Union County, NJ 18.97 17.18 

340390006 Union County, NJ 13.69 13.69 

340392003 Union County, NJ 17.03 14.37 

360050080 Bronx County, NY 16.96 14.92 

360050083 Bronx County, NY 15.80 13.66 

360050110 Bronx County, NY 16.82 15.85 

360470052 Kings County, NY 16.66 13.63 

360470076 Kings County, NY 15.82 13.66 

360470122 Kings County, NY 16.50 14.34 

360590008 Nassau County, NY 13.93 11.62 

360610056 New York County, NY 17.38 15.33 

360610062 New York County, NY 17.44 15.26 

360610079 New York County, NY 16.50 14.39 

360610128 New York County, NY 17.61 15.40 

360710002 Orange County, NY 14.84 12.96 

360810124 Queens County, NY 15.69 14.74 

360850055 Richmond County, NY 16.26 13.90 
7-43

360850067 Richmond County, NY 14.86 12.60 

361030001 Suffolk County, NY 14.34 12.16 

361191002 Westchester County, NY 14.85 12.76
7-44

Table 7-9. Baseline PM2.5 design values at all FRM monitors across the NYC 

NAA as computed by MATS using the official EPA database (which includes 

flagged data from July 2002 in NY and NJ), and excluding the flagged data from 

July 2002 in NY and NJ. 

FRM site County, State 

Baseline Design 

Value, ug/m3 

(include flagged 

days) 

Baseline Design 

Value, ug/m3 

(exclude flagged 

days)

090010010 Fairfield County, CT 13.1 13.1 

090010113 Fairfield County, CT 12.7 12.7 

090011123 Fairfield County, CT 12.8 12.8 

090012124 Fairfield County, CT 12.9 12.9 

090013005 Fairfield County, CT 13.0 13.0 

090019003 Fairfield County, CT 11.4 11.4 

090091123 New Haven County, CT 13.7 13.7 

090092123 New Haven County, CT 13.1 13.1 

090099005 New Haven County, CT 11.6 11.6 

340030003 Bergen County, NJ 13.0 12.8 

340171003 Hudson County, NJ 14.9 14.8 

340210008 Mercer County, NJ 13.9 13.7 

340218001 Mercer County, NJ 11.6 11.5 

340230006 Middlesex County, NJ 12.5 12.2 

340270004 Morris County, NJ 11.8 11.6 

340273001 Morris County, NJ 10.7 10.5 

340310005 Passaic County, NJ 13.1 12.9 

340390004 Union County, NJ 15.7 15.5 

340390006 Union County, NJ 13.2 13.2 

340392003 Union County, NJ 13.1 12.9 

360050080 Bronx County, NY 15.8 15.6 

360050083 Bronx County, NY 13.8 13.7 

360050110 Bronx County, NY 14.3 14.3 

360470052 Kings County, NY 15.7 15.5 

360470076 Kings County, NY 14.6 14.4 
7-45

360470122 Kings County, NY 14.7 14.5 

360590008 Nassau County, NY 12.2 12.0 

360610056 New York County, NY 16.9 16.7 

360610062 New York County, NY 16.3 16.1 

360610079 New York County, NY 14.7 14.5 

360610128 New York County, NY 15.9 15.6 

360710002 Orange County, NY 11.5 11.4 

360810124 Queens County, NY 12.9 12.8 

360850055 Richmond County, NY 14.4 14.2 

360850067 Richmond County, NY 12.1 12.0 

361030001 Suffolk County, NY 12.1 11.9 

361191002 Westchester County, NY 12.2 12.0

Table 7-10. Baseline non-blank species composition at all FRM monitors across 

the NYC NAA as computed by MATS. “SO4” is sulfate; “NO3r” is retained nitrate; 

“OM” is organic aerosol mass; “EC” is elemental carbon (OM+EC = 

carbonaceous mass); “PBW” is particle-bound water; “NH4” is ammonium 

associated with SO4 and NO3r; “OPP” is other primary PM2.5, assumed to equal 

the sum of major crustal oxides (Si, Ca, Fe, and Ti); and “Salt” is 1.8×Cl. 

FRM site SO4 NO3r OM EC PBW NH4 OPP Salt

090010010 3.60 0.59 4.84 0.80 1.05 1.27 0.45 0.03

090010113 3.55 0.55 4.52 0.79 1.04 1.24 0.44 0.03

090011123 3.75 0.65 3.97 0.87 1.15 1.36 0.46 0.04

090012124 3.59 0.67 4.44 0.83 1.06 1.30 0.46 0.03

090013005 3.46 0.55 5.16 0.75 0.97 1.19 0.43 0.02

090019003 3.59 0.62 2.78 0.88 1.19 1.37 0.46 0.06

090091123 3.90 0.50 4.84 0.86 1.21 1.41 0.46 0.04

090092123 3.92 0.69 3.83 0.94 1.26 1.47 0.49 0.05

090099005 3.59 0.65 2.93 0.89 1.18 1.38 0.46 0.06

340030003 3.71 0.80 3.25 1.08 1.28 1.52 0.55 0.08

340171003 3.99 1.14 4.08 1.24 1.36 1.75 0.60 0.09

340210008 4.51 0.98 3.06 0.74 1.52 1.81 0.50 0.05

340218001 3.86 0.67 2.61 0.58 1.30 1.49 0.41 0.03

340230006 3.67 0.70 3.16 0.99 1.26 1.46 0.45 0.05

340270004 3.93 0.59 2.72 0.71 1.28 1.45 0.38 0.03
7-46

340273001 3.15 0.50 2.85 0.75 1.08 1.21 0.38 0.03

340310005 3.79 0.80 3.28 1.10 1.31 1.54 0.53 0.07

340390004 4.29 0.99 4.95 1.02 1.45 1.76 0.56 0.08

340390006 3.57 0.78 3.72 1.37 1.23 1.49 0.52 0.06

340392003 3.54 0.76 3.60 1.29 1.22 1.46 0.50 0.05

360050080 4.11 1.02 4.91 1.19 1.41 1.74 0.62 0.12

360050083 4.17 1.01 2.96 1.10 1.43 1.76 0.61 0.12

360050110 3.96 0.93 4.06 1.20 1.34 1.62 0.59 0.08

360470052 4.13 1.18 4.44 1.28 1.41 1.81 0.61 0.10

360470076 3.82 1.12 4.18 1.15 1.30 1.68 0.57 0.09

360470122 4.01 1.12 3.86 1.16 1.37 1.75 0.60 0.10

360590008 3.67 0.82 2.84 0.83 1.26 1.51 0.50 0.09

360610056 4.35 1.17 5.28 1.27 1.49 1.88 0.64 0.11

360610062 4.31 1.04 4.97 1.23 1.48 1.80 0.62 0.12

360610079 4.20 1.05 3.61 1.17 1.44 1.78 0.62 0.12

360610128 4.02 1.19 4.84 1.23 1.37 1.78 0.60 0.10

360710002 3.68 0.62 2.79 0.81 1.15 1.34 0.43 0.03

360810124 3.80 0.89 3.02 1.10 1.31 1.58 0.56 0.09

360850055 3.94 0.92 3.71 1.47 1.36 1.66 0.58 0.08

360850067 3.12 0.67 3.69 1.09 1.08 1.29 0.45 0.06

361030001 3.74 0.73 2.87 0.85 1.23 1.44 0.50 0.06

361191002 3.64 0.76 2.80 1.05 1.23 1.44 0.53 0.06
7-47

Table 7-11. Baseline and future PM2.5 design values at all FRM monitors across 

the NYC NAA as computed by MATS, excluding flagged FRM days. 

FRM site County, State Baseline Design 

Value, ug/m3 

Future Design 

Value, ug/m3 

090010010 Fairfield County, CT 13.1 11.7 

090010113 Fairfield County, CT 12.7 11.2 

090011123 Fairfield County, CT 12.8 11.2 

090012124 Fairfield County, CT 12.9 11.5 

090013005 Fairfield County, CT 13.0 11.7 

090019003 Fairfield County, CT 11.4 9.8 

090091123 New Haven County, CT 13.7 12.0 

090092123 New Haven County, CT 13.1 11.4 

090099005 New Haven County, CT 11.6 10.0 

340030003 Bergen County, NJ 12.8 11.3 

340171003 Hudson County, NJ 14.8 13.2 

340210008 Mercer County, NJ 13.7 11.6 

340218001 Mercer County, NJ 11.5 9.6 

340230006 Middlesex County, NJ 12.2 10.3 

340270004 Morris County, NJ 11.6 9.7 

340273001 Morris County, NJ 10.5 8.8 

340310005 Passaic County, NJ 12.9 11.1 

340390004 Union County, NJ 15.5 13.5 

340390006 Union County, NJ 13.2 11.5 

340392003 Union County, NJ 12.9 11.2 

360050080 Bronx County, NY 15.6 14.2 

360050083 Bronx County, NY 13.7 12.2 

360050110 Bronx County, NY 14.3 13.0 

360470052 Kings County, NY 15.5 14.0 

360470076 Kings County, NY 14.4 13.1 

360470122 Kings County, NY 14.5 13.1 

360590008 Nassau County, NY 12.0 10.7 

360610056 New York County, NY 16.7 15.2 
7-48

360610062 New York County, NY 16.1 14.5 

360610079 New York County, NY 14.5 13.2 

360610128 New York County, NY 15.6 14.2 

360710002 Orange County, NY 11.4 10.0 

360810124 Queens County, NY 12.8 11.5 

360850055 Richmond County, NY 14.2 12.4 

360850067 Richmond County, NY 12.0 10.5 

361030001 Suffolk County, NY 11.9 10.5 

361191002 Westchester County, NY 12.0 10.6
7-49

Table 7-12. Information for the five FRM monitors considered in this analysis: 

site name and ID, dates of operation during 2000-2004, base year PM2.5 design 

value, and the nearest STN monitor. 

Site 

Name FRM site 

Operational 

periods during 

2000-2004 

Base year 

Design Value, 

ug/m3

Nearest STN 

monitor 

P.S.59 360610056 1st qtr 2000 – 4th qtr 

2004 16.9 360610062 

Canal 

St 360610062 1st qtr 2000 – 4th qtr 2004 16.3 360610062 

J.H.S.4

5 360610079 1st qtr 2000 – 4th qtr 2004 14.7 360050110 

P.S.19 360610128 3rd qtr 2001 – 4th qtr 

2004 15.9 360610062 

I.S.52 360050110 1st qtr 2000 – 4th qtr 

2004 14.7 360050110 

Table 7-13. Current PM2.5 species composition at each site: sulfate (SO4), 

retained nitrate (NO3r), organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), particlebound water (PBW), retained ammonium (NH4), and other primary PM2.5 (OPP). 

FRM site SO4 NO3r OC EC PBW NH4 OPP 

360610056 4.98 1.50 3.81 1.51 1.65 2.19 0.77 

360610062* 4.81 1.40 3.66 1.45 1.59 2.10 0.74 

360610079 4.41 1.05 3.58 1.13 1.47 1.84 0.71 

360610128 4.68 1.39 3.59 1.42 1.55 2.05 0.72 

360050110* 4.39 1.08 3.56 1.14 1.46 1.84 0.71 

* FRM Monitor with collocated STN 

Table 7-14. Annual average PM2.5 mass over the nine grid cells surrounding 

each monitor from the base year (2002) and future year (2009) CMAQ 

simulations, as well as the absolute and percent reductions. 

FRM site 2002 avg., 

ug/m3

2009 avg., 

ug/m3

Change 

ug/m3

Change 

(%) 

360610056 24.28 20.51 -3.77 -15.5 
7-50

360610062 23.70 19.80 -3.90 -16.5 

360610079 24.28 20.51 -3.77 -15.5 

360610128 23.66 20.01 -3.65 -15.4 

360050110 24.28 20.51 -3.77 -15.5 
7-51

Table 7-15. Base and future year PM2.5 design values. 

FRM site Base Year Design Value, 

ug/m3

Future PM2.5 Design 

Value, ug/m3

360610056 16.9 15.3 

360610062 16.3 14.4 

360610079 14.7 13.3 

360610128 15.9 14.3 

360050110 14.7 13.3 

Figure 7-3 - PM2.5 FRM Sites in New York City