1

Appendix F: Public Participation 

Attachment 3: Response to Comment Document 

During the hearing and comment period, comments were received on the proposed State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. The following is a summary of those comments and the 

State’s responses to those comments. After each comment is the name of the commenter(s) and 

their affiliation(s) in bold. 

1) Comment: One commenter stated that the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) was vacated by 

the United States Court of Appeals on July 11, 2008. The USEPA is currently reviewing the 

decision and determining the next steps to take in response to the decision. The commenter 

stated that since New Jersey’s proposed PM2.5 SIP relies on CAIR for the contingency measures 

and also included CAIR reductions in the photochemical modeling, New Jersey should consider 

how the CAIR vacatur will impact the final PM2.5 SIP. The commenter stated that New Jersey’s 

PM2.5 SIP may need to be modified to reflect the absence of the emission reductions from this 

program. (Richard Ruvo, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 

2) 

Response: On December 23, 2008, the court remanded the CAIR to the USEPA without vacatur 

of CAIR “so that EPA may remedy CAIR’s flaws in accordance with” the court’s July 2008 

opinion vacating CAIR. The court gave no deadline for the USEPA rulemaking, but it said: 

“[W]e remind EPA that we do not intend to grant an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of 

this court’s decision. Our opinion revealed CAIR’s fundamental flaws, which EPA must 

still remedy. Further, we remind the Petitioners that they may bring a mandamus petition 

to this court in the event that EPA fails to modify CAIR in a manner consistent with our 

July 11, 2008 opinion.” (Order at 1, Dec. 23, 2008.) 

Therefore, the anticipated vacatur no longer applies since a mandate by the court was never 

issued on the July 11, 2008 opinion (State of North Carolina v. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). In light of the court decisions made after the proposal 

of the SIP revision, CAIR remains in full effect. 

However, New Jersey has grave doubts that the implementation of CAIR alone will be sufficient 

to address interstate transport issues, especially for the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic United 

States. According to 2010 CAIR modeling, transported emissions from six states contribute 

significantly to New Jersey’s PM2.5 nonattainment. In addition, CAIR focuses solely on Electric 

Generating Units (EGUs), and does not address interstate transport of emissions from other 

sectors (non-EGU, mobile, area). 

Other states’ failure to address their contribution to the New Jersey associated multi-state 

nonattainment areas’ air quality problems could result in New Jersey’s associated multi-state 

nonattainment areas’ inability to meet their attainment goal. New Jersey relies on the USEPA to 

ensure sufficient progress in securing upwind emission reductions in accordance with Section 

110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act to provide for expeditious attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS. New 

Jersey is relying upon the USEPA to provide sufficient emission reductions from upwind sources 
2

coupled with the interstate reductions provided in this plan to bring the multi-state nonattainment 

areas into attainment with the 1997 PM2.5 health standards and maintain them. 

In response to the anticipated vacatur, the SO2 emission reductions from the CAIR that were 

being used as a Contingency Measure (Chapter 6) were replaced by the emission reductions from 

a Consent Decree for the Hudson Generating Station (Unit 2). New Jersey did not reverse these 

changes due to the recent court decisions as both measures will provide sufficient emission 

reductions to meet contingency requirements. 

We continue to rely on the USEPA requiring sufficient reductions from out of state EGUs with 

the court ordered improvements to CAIR.

The following changes were made to the SIP based on this comment: 

 In Chapter 4 (Control Measures), “Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Mercer and 

Hudson)” were added as control measures in Section 4.3.1.5.5. These control measures were 

also added to Table 4.5. 

In Chapter 5 (Attainment Demonstration), on page 5-43, CAIR was removed as a contingency 

measure and replaced with Controls from EGU Consent Decree (PSE&G Hudson SO2). On page 

5-43, language about the 2002 consent decrees was moved to Chapter 4. On Page 5-46, 

references to the CAIR NOx trading program were removed. 

In Chapter 6 (Contingency Measures), the CAIR contingency measure was removed from Tables 

6.1 and 6.2 and the list of contingency measures. “Controls from EGU Consent Decrees 

(PSE&G Hudson SO2)” were added to Table 6.1 and to the contingency measures list. 

In Chapter 9 (Commitments and Requests for Future Action), the CAIR contingency measure 

was removed from Table 9.1 and replaced with SO2 Controls from EGU Consent Decrees 

(PSE&G Hudson SO2). 

In Appendix C (Contingency Measure Calculations), the CAIR contingency section was 

removed and replaced with a section describing SO2 Controls from EGU Consent Decrees. 

Additionally, CAIR was removed from the list of contingency measures and replaced with 

Controls from EGU Consent Decree (PSE&G Hudson SO2). 

2) Comment: One commenter stated that MOBILE6.2 does not estimate any emission credit 

for diesel inspection and maintenance programs, and the USEPA has not approved of any 

alternate methods. Therefore, New Jersey cannot claim any emissions credit from changes to its 

diesel I/M cutpoint rule. (Richard Ruvo, USEPA Region 2) 

Response: Although MOBILE6.2 does not estimate any emission credit for diesel inspection 

and maintenance programs, New Jersey’s diesel I/M cutpoint air rule will result in emission 

reductions. New Jersey will not allocate this measure as a contingency measure, however, a 

description of this measure is still included in Chapter 4 (Control Measures), as it is still a control 

measure being implemented by the Department to reduce PM2.5 air pollution. The estimated 
3

emission reductions that were included in the contingency section of the SIP are still anticipated 

reductions from the rule, but will not be used for contingency. Inspection and maintenance 

programs are effective in reducing emissions. The USEPA’s model fails to reflect the 

degradation of emission control systems. The USEPA should consider modifications to the 

model to consider degradation of emission control systems in order to accurately reflect 

emissions from diesel powered vehicles. 

Based on this comment, the diesel smoke (I/M cutpoint) rule was removed as a contingency 

measure. References to the rule were removed from Chapter 6 and Appendix C (Contingency 

Measures), but were not removed from Chapter 4 where the measure is described. The estimated 

quantification of the measure has been included in Chapter 5. 

3) Comment: The Northern New Jersey/New York Connecticut and Southern New 

Jersey/Philadelphia areas are classified as nonattainment for PM2.5 - for both areas the attainment 

date is April 5, 2010. Provide a demonstration for each PM2.5 nonattainment area which shows 

how future control measures and the associated emission control credits by source sector (point, 

area, nonroad and onroad mobile sources) are enough to meet the attainment year target levels. 

(Richard Ruvo, USEPA Region 2)

Response: As discussed in the SIP in Chapter 5, the inventories used in the attainment 

demonstration were developed on a regional basis by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 

and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA). Development of the 

2002 base inventory and future year projection inventories are discussed in the report prepared 

by MARAMA titled, “Development of Emission Projections for 2009, 2012, and 2018 for 

NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Source in the MANE-VU Region, Final Report,” dated 

February 2007, and in the report prepared by MARAMA titled “Technical Support Document for 

2002 MANE-VU SIP Modeling Inventories, Version 3,” dated November 20, 2006. These 

reports were included in the SIP as Appendices B5-2 and B4. The inventory files discussed in 

the reports can be found on the MARAMA website at: 

http://www.marama.org/visibility/EI_Projects/index.html

The NJDEP will work with the USEPA to provide a technical supplement to the PM2.5 SIP, 

which further summarizes the inventories and control measures used in the modeling in a 

mutually agreeable format and timeframe. This work will use the information readily available 

from MARAMA. 

4) Comment: The commenters stated that a 12.0 μg/m3

 annual fine PM standard should be 

instituted for New Jersey. The commenters stated that since New Jersey has the legal authority 

to set the annual PM2.5 standard to 12.0 μg/m3

, there is no need for the State to wait for the 

Federal government to lower the standard. The commenters stated that the NJDEP should 

include a recommendation in its PM2.5 SIP that the annual PM2.5 standard for New Jersey be 

decreased from 15.0 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3

. The commenters stated that if a 12.0 μg/m3 standard 

were legally established in the State, it would provide the NJDEP with additional legal and 

political power to implement policies that would lower PM2.5 concentrations below this level. 

According to the commenters, the lower annual standard would also help the State to attain the 

new daily PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m3. (New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA), 
4

Environmental Research Foundation (ERF), Change to Win (CtW), International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

Response: As stated in the PM2.5 SIP proposal, while New Jersey has not taken official steps to 

establish its own air quality standards for PM2.5, the NJDEP’s air quality goal is to achieve an 

annual PM2.5 level of 12 μg/m3. 

A goal of 12 μg/m3

 is a 20 percent reduction from the Federal annual PM2.5 NAAQS established 

in 1997. Proceeding through the process to establish a new state ambient air quality standard 

will take a tremendous amount of time and resources. Taking steps to achieve the air quality 

goal is a better use of limited resources than focusing the efforts on establishing a 12 μg/m3

ambient standard sometime in the future. 

5) Comment: Some commenters requested that the NJDEP should establish a moratorium on 

the issuance of air pollution permits for overburdened environmental justice neighborhoods that 

fail to achieve attainment of the annual fine particulate matter standard by April 5, 2010. The 

commenters stated that overburdened neighborhoods should be identified. Then a communitybased monitoring system should be established in the overburdened communities to determine 

whether the Federal PM2.5 standard has been achieved. If the standard has not been achieved, air 

pollution permits should be withheld until PM2.5 concentrations are decreased to the NJDEP’s 

goal of 12.0 μg/m3

. The commenters suggested that if New Jersey institutes a 12.0 μg/m3 annual 

standard, then no air pollution permits should be issued in overburdened Environmental Justice 

(EJ) neighborhoods that fail to attain that standard, and the moratorium should remain in place 

until concentrations are reduced to 9.6 μg/m3 (80% of that standard). The commenters stated that 

this pollution control strategy is a limited, well-defined use of a moratorium policy that 

recognizes the possible cumulative impacts on local residents of multiple pollution sources and 

limits fine PM air pollution in overburdened Environmental Justice neighborhoods. The 

commenters noted that the PM2.5 SIP states that the NJDEP is committed to assessing cumulative 

impact policies. The commenters state that the 1954 New Jersey Air Pollution Control Law and 

New Jersey Administrative Code provide the NJDEP with the legal authority to establish a 

moratorium on the issuance of air pollution permits under these circumstances. (New Jersey 

Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA), Environmental Research Foundation (ERF), 

Change to Win (CtW), International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Coalition for 

Healthy Ports (CHPs)) 

Response: Air pollution permits serve many purposes, among them, to reduce air pollution 

issues. Permits for new and modified sources result in reductions of air pollution, not increases, 

as generally older, more polluting sources are replaced. 

The 1954 New Jersey Air Pollution Control (APC) Act and New Jersey Administrative Code 

(NJAC) do not contain provisions that allow the Department to establish a moratorium on the 

issuance of permits. NJAC 7:27-8.14 (a) 2 states that an Air Pollution Control permit can be 

denied if it causes exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. This would apply anywhere in 

the State. 
5

On February 5, 2009, Governor Corzine signed a new executive order to address environmental 

issues in low-income and minority communities, which included the creation of an advisory 

council to oversee state policies and initiatives.1

 Created by Executive Order 131 (EO #131), the 

Environmental Justice Advisory Council (“Advisory Council”) extends a similar environmental 

justice advisory council, the New Jersey Environmental Justice Task Force (EJTF), created five 

years ago.2

 

EO #131 directs all State entities involved in decisions that affect environmental quality and 

public health to provide opportunities for input by representatives of low-income and minority 

groups. The Advisory Council is charged with making recommendations to the Commissioner 

of the NJDEP about issues involving environmental justice in this State in fulfillment of this 

Executive Order. 

As discussed in this SIP revision, the NJDEP is working with the USEPA on a number of 

national air toxic reduction programs. To address disproportionate impacts of air toxic hazards 

across urban areas on highly exposed population subgroups, and predominately minority and 

low-income communities,3

 the NJDEP is developing methods and strategies to assess air impacts 

from multiple sources at the community scale. 

The response to the community-based monitoring system portion of this comment is included in 

the response to Comment #9.

 

6) Comment: Some commenters stated that in order to implement the moratorium policy 

discussed in Comment #8 and determine which EJ neighborhoods are in nonattainment of the 

Federal annual PM2.5 standard as of April 5, 2010, the NJDEP should establish a communitybased PM2.5 monitoring system in overburdened EJ communities. The commenters stated that 

even if the moratorium is not established, a community-based monitoring system would still be 

desirable because it would be capable of providing information on fine PM concentrations on a 

much smaller geographic scale than DEP is currently able to produce. They stated that a 

community-based monitoring system could provide long-term data on a neighborhood level and 

would be able to identify local pollution “hot spots” that might exist within urban areas. They 

stated that such a system would be consistent with the recommendation of the Clean Air Act 

Advisory Committee (CAAAC) that suggests states rely less on modeling and more on ambient 

air monitoring. The commenters also explained how the monitoring system could be studentdriven, and that high school students have successfully completed this type of monitoring in the 

past. This would aid New Jersey’s public schools in providing improved science education to 

the State’s students. (New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA), Environmental 

Research Foundation (ERF), Change to Win (CtW), International Brotherhood of 

Teamsters (IBT), and Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHPs)) 

 

1

 NJDEP. Environmental Justice Program. New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, http://www.nj.gov/dep/ej/policy.html, accessed March 17, 2009. EO #131 replaced 

EO#96 (2004) as of February 17, 2009. 

2 The New Jersey (EJTF) was created by Executive Order 96 (EO #96), which was signed in February 2004 and 

expired February 17, 2009. 

3

 USEPA. Fact Sheet, The Air Toxics Strategy. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/urban/strategyfs0303.pdf, accessed November 28, 2007. 
6

Response: The type of monitoring referred to in the comment is good for promoting community 

involvement and for looking at spatial variability, but this kind of monitoring is not appropriate 

for the regulatory applications that the commenter seeks. The described monitoring methods are 

not accepted methods for determining if an area complies with the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). 

Monitoring locations must meet Federal siting criteria and be conducted using Federal Reference 

Methods. There are requirements for traceability of standards used in calibrations and other 

areas that make it impractical to monitor for NAAQS compliance with a community based 

program with today’s technology. 

Funding community based monitoring programs for other applications might be feasible, but the 

objectives and limitations of the methods needs to be understood ahead of time. In the 

Camden/Trenton/Newark study the commenter referred to, the type of instruments used to 

monitor PM2.5 can read twice as high as a reference method instrument. These instruments can 

be used to look at relative concentrations and have been used successfully in several studies. 

7) Comment: Some commenters stated that climate change policies should be developed and 

implemented that decrease emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors in addition to emissions of 

carbon dioxide (CO2). The commenters urged the State to select and implement climate change 

policies that go beyond having a “supplemental” effect on PM2.5 and precursor concentrations. 

The commenters stated that New Jersey should use climate change strategies that significantly 

reduce emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors as well as emissions of carbon dioxide. The 

commenters stated that if a policy only decreases carbon dioxide emissions and does not also 

yield significant reductions in PM2.5, nitrogen oxides or sulfur dioxide emissions, it should not be 

implemented. The commenters stated that if this type of policy were adopted, the State would 

have to evaluate all potential climate change strategies for their ability to reduce emissions of 

these other toxic pollutants and mentioned that since the State has already performed a similar 

type of evaluation for NOx reduction it should be comfortable applying it to proposed climate 

change policies. 

The commenters stated that using climate change policies to also reduce PM2.5 concentrations 

would not only help the State achieve attainment for the current Federal annual PM2.5 standard, 

but would also help the NJDEP to realize its internal goal of driving concentrations below 12.0 

μg/m3 and fulfill its legal obligation of ensuring air quality in New Jersey meets the new 35.0 

μg/m3 federal daily PM2.5 standard. (New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA), 

Environmental Research Foundation (ERF), Change to Win (CtW), International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

Response: The Department agrees with this comment. The control measures implemented to 

meet the Federal ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze requirements will also be beneficial in the 

State’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and visa versa, since both ozone and 

black carbon (soot) have an atmospheric warming effect. In fact, since the atmospheric lifetime 

of ozone and black carbon are so much shorter than those of the long-lived GHG gases, days as 

opposed to years for CO2, methane and halocarbons, reductions in these short-lived species may 

prove to be of some importance in slowing global warming in the short term. Also, measures to 
7

reduce CO2 emissions will reduce other air contaminant emissions as well. The State is in the 

process of formulating recommendations to meet the Global Warming Response Act’s ambitious 

GHG limits, and these recommendations are focused not only on reducing GHG emissions, but 

on improving the overall air quality. A Draft of the Global Warming Response Act 

Recommendation Report was released on December 15, 2008, and there have been six public 

meetings held to solicit input on the plan. Further details are available at: 

http://www.nj.gov/globalwarming/home/stakeholder.html. 

8) Comment: Some commenters stated that energy conservation and renewable energy sources 

should be used extensively in urban areas. The commenters stated that this strategy has the 

potential to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide, decrease emissions of fine PM and its 

precursors, and provide employment and other economic opportunities to local residents. The 

commenters stated that the ultimate goal would be to make urban areas in New Jersey centers of 

innovation for, and the utilization of, energy conservation and renewable energy sources in a 

manner that will help to economically revitalize inner-city neighborhoods. The commenters 

stated that energy conservation methods might show rapid results and that the NJDEP needs to 

implement reduction strategies that will be effective beyond 2010 to satisfy its internal goal of 

reducing fine PM concentrations to 12.0 μg/m3 and its legal obligation to attain the new Federal 

daily 35.0 μg/m3 standard. (New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA), 

Environmental Research Foundation (ERF), Change to Win (CtW), International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

Response: The NJDEP agrees with the commenter that energy conservation measures will help 

to reduce PM2.5 emissions. The use of energy conservation and renewable energy sources are 

addressed in New Jersey’s Energy Master Plan. Currently, the State is working to develop green 

collar jobs across the State with special emphasis in urban areas. The Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development gave a grant to Isles (a nationally recognized nonprofit community 

development and environmental organization) to develop a curriculum for home energy raters 

(auditors) that would allow people to receive the training needed to take the certification tests. 

Additional information about these and other energy conservation measures will be discussed in 

the final Energy Master Plan. The Energy Master Plan is available at this site: 

http://www.nj.gov/emp/docs/pdf/081022_emp.pdf. 

9) Comment: Some commenters stated that privately-owned pre-2007 diesel vehicles should 

be retrofitted or retired. The commenters made reference to a discussion from the PM2.5 SIP of 

the extremely toxic nature of diesel PM, and how urban residents may face a disproportionately 

high health risk from diesel PM. The commenters also discussed a report that lists Trenton area 

residents as suffering from the fifth highest per capita mortality rate in the country due to diesel 

PM. The commenters suggested that the most effective manner to lower the health risks posed to 

urban residents in New Jersey by diesel PM is by either retrofitting or retiring privately-owned 

diesel-powered vehicles constructed prior to 2007 and stated that no comprehensive strategy is 

presented by the Fine PM SIP to accomplish this life-saving task. 

The commenters stated that NJEJA, CUE, ERF, NJEF, Greenfaith, and the New Jersey Work 

Environment Council have developed, and are developing, policies intended to retrofit or retire 

discreet portions of the privately-owned diesel-powered fleet in New Jersey. These 
8

organizations are also part of, or work with, the Clean and Healthy Ports Coalition, which is 

developing policy that would result in the thousands of trucks that travel through or near 

residential neighborhoods every day to service the ports in Northern New Jersey either being 

retrofitted or retired. The commenters stated that the leadership and authority of the NJDEP and 

the state are needed for these efforts to be successful. (New Jersey Environmental Justice 

Alliance (NJEJA), Environmental Research Foundation (ERF), Change to Win (CtW), 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

Response: The Diesel Retrofit Law, which is currently being implemented, targets about 40,000 

vehicles that operate in residential areas, are used to transport children, or are publicly owned. 

For example, the law requires that garbage trucks and NJ Transit buses be retrofitted with diesel 

reduction technology because they operate in close proximity to people and throughout 

residential areas. The law does not target most privately owned vehicles, such as long haul 

trucks traveling on major highways, because the limited funding was directed towards sectors 

that potentially had a greater impact on human health and the environment. The NJDEP 

recognizes that there are additional opportunities for diesel reductions and will pursue additional 

measures where feasible. Ongoing efforts that will enable us to achieve reductions from some 

privately owned vehicles include the following: 

• With assistance from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the NJDEP 

granted $750,000 to the New Jersey Motor Truck Association to reimburse truckers for 

installation of idle reduction devices and tailpipe retrofit technology. Currently, nearly 

all of the money has been allocated and the Association has requested additional funding. 

• The NJDEP recently enhanced New Jersey’s idling rule which limits idling of gasoline 

and diesel powered vehicles to three minutes, under most circumstances, and prohibits 

idling of a truck’s sleeper berth as of 2010. 

• New Jersey has the nation’s oldest diesel inspection and maintenance program under 

which nearly 70,000 large diesel vehicles are annually inspected to ensure they are 

properly maintained thereby reducing emissions. 

• The NJDEP is overseeing $13 million in voluntary diesel risk reduction projects, with $3 

million worth of projects already completed. Most notably, the NJDEP spearheaded the 

installation of the state’s first two electrified truck stops with a third one underway 

shortly. The NJDEP has also granted $500,000 to the South Jersey Port Corporation to 

reduce emissions from their diesel operations and have begun a $3 million locomotive 

upgrade project at the North Jersey port. Money for these projects was obtained through 

competitive grants, discretionary grants, and enforcement settlements. 

10) Comment: Some commenters stated that the NJDEP should develop and implement a plan 

to address PM2.5 emissions generated by the ports operated by the Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey in Newark and Elizabeth. The commenters stated that PM2.5 emissions from 

port machinery, trucking associated with the ports, and ships that operate in and around the ports 

on a regular basis are most likely having a detrimental health effect on many citizens in our state 

but especially on residents who live in neighborhoods that are in close proximity to the ports. 

The commenter acknowledges that the PM2.5 SIP contains some discussion concerning efforts to 

reduce emissions from the port in South Jersey, but stated that the SIP does not discuss plans to 
9

address PM pollution generated by the larger ports in Newark and Elizabeth. The commenters 

suggested that the first air pollution issue connected to the ports in Northern New Jersey that 

should be addressed is the diesel PM emitted by the thousands of trucks that move items every 

day to and from the port near or through residential neighborhoods. The commenters stated that 

pre-2007 trucks that conduct business with the port on a regular basis need to be retrofitted with 

the most effective pollution control device possible or retired and replaced by trucks 

manufactured after 2006. The commenters stated that the Port Authority of New York and New 

Jersey (Port Authority) has an obligation to protect the health of New Jersey citizens and 

therefore should ensure that these trucks are either retrofitted or retired. 

The commenters stated that the Coalition for Healthy Ports is advocating that all trucking 

associated with the port should be handled by a trucking company that pays drivers a living wage 

with benefits and that is primarily responsible for utilizing trucks that are either manufactured 

after 2006 or emit no more air pollution than a post-2006 truck. Under this plan the other 

responsible party for ensuring that port-associated trucks are emitting low levels of air pollution 

would be the Port Authority. This responsibility would include a financial contribution and the 

development of an enforcement system that would guarantee trucks that conducted business on a 

regular basis with the ports meet the requirement of producing no more air pollution than post2006 trucks. 

The commenters stated that other port-related PM2.5 air pollution issues that need to be addressed 

include: Retrofitting, repowering or retiring diesel-powered equipment such as cranes using the 

best available technology; retrofitting, repowering or retiring diesel-powered ships and boats, 

such as tugboats, that operate near a port on a regular basis, using the best available technology; 

and requiring that all ships and boats that operate within a certain distance of the coast utilize 

low-sulfur fuel. (New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA), Environmental 

Research Foundation (ERF), Change to Win (CtW), International Brotherhood of 

Teamsters (IBT), and Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

Response: The NJDEP is committed to developing diesel reduction strategies at both the north 

Jersey and south Jersey ports. The NJDEP is especially mindful of the numerous residents 

impacted by freight movement in and near their neighborhoods. Although much more needs to 

be done, some of the initiatives that are already underway include:

• NESCAUM is utilizing a $250,000 grant from the USEPA to implement recommendations 

by the State’s Environmental Justice Task Force to reduce environmental risks to citizens of 

Waterfront South in Camden (near the South Jersey Port). The NJDEP supplemented the 

grant with $500,000 from an enforcement settlement to reduce particulate emissions from 

diesel equipment owned and operated by the South Jersey Port Corporation. 

• The NJDEP recently received a grant in the amount of $85,000 from the USEPA for a project 

titled “Idling Reduction in a Multi-Cultural Port Community.” Our grant partner, Future 

City, Inc. of Elizabeth, will conduct an outreach and education program with the multilingual residents of the port communities surrounding the Ports of Newark and Elizabeth. 

Future City’s efforts will concentrate on reducing idling and changing driving habits, 

especially among the trucking or “drayage” industry. 
10

• The NJDEP has also begun to reach out to mayors, local police, and port authority police to 

remind them that they have authority to enforce our idling regulations. 

• Through a supplemental environmental project, the NJDEP is undertaking a cutting edge 

locomotive emission reduction project at the north jersey port which involves replacing the 

traditional engine with a gen-set engine and installing a diesel particulate filter. 

• The NJDEP also provided some funding for an innovative hybrid yard hostler project being 

spearheaded by USEPA and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 

• Former NJDEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson testified on Capitol Hill in support of cleaner 

fuel for ships calling on our ports. Congress Consequently ratified the International Marine 

Organization (IMO) plan to reduce air pollution from ships, especially when in a USA port. 

In addition, the NJDEP is participating in a workgroup launched by the Port Authority of New 

York and New Jersey to develop a Clean Air Strategy plan to reduce various air pollutants 

(including PM2.5) at Port Elizabeth and Port Newark. As part of that process, the NJDEP will 

advocate for upgrading the fleet of drayage trucks that call on the port; reducing emissions from 

ships through idling reduction and cleaner fuels; and providing incentives/disincentives for rail 

operators to utilize technology to reduce idling at their port located switchyards. The NJDEP 

will also take into account the recommendations recently received from the New Jersey Clean 

Air Council, based on testimony they received during their public hearing earlier this year 

(“Improving Air Quality at our Ports and Airports”). The NJDEP expects that the Port Authority 

will be able to develop a plan to significantly reduce emissions from port operations as a result of 

this collaborative, stakeholder process. 

11) Comment: Some commenters stated that the NJDEP should institute an Indirect Source 

Review (ISR). The commenters stated that instituting an Indirect Source Review may provide 

the NJDEP with the authority to establish policies that will reduce PM2.5 emissions from the 

ports in Northern New Jersey, and more specifically from diesel-powered vehicles and other 

sources that are difficult to regulate. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), indirect sources of 

pollution may be regulated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(5). The commenters stated that 

indirect sources of PM2.5 in New Jersey include the ports, the New Jersey Turnpike, the airports, 

and the warehousing complexes across the state, each of which attract mobile sources of fine 

PM, primarily from diesel-powered trucks, large ships and airplanes. The commenters stated 

that regulation of indirect sources may be included in a SIP and, given the primacy of 

environmental justice concerns to New Jersey and its citizens, New Jersey should assume a 

leadership role for the nation and institute its own Indirect Source Review program via the PM2.5

SIP. The commenter described Indirect Source Review programs that are in place in Oregon, 

Wisconsin and the region of San Joaquin Valley, California. The commenters stated that these 

Indirect Source Review programs allow the states to reduce emissions in an efficient manner, 

and by encompassing mobile sources such as diesel-powered trucks and large ships within the 

non-mobile source regulatory scheme, emissions may be drastically reduced. 

The commenters stated that any adoption of an Indirect Source Review in New Jersey would 

help the NJDEP and the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) to meet its mandate 

from Executive Order #96, i.e., developing “a coordinated strategy for reducing the public’s 

exposure to fine particulate pollution in affected communities, particularly from diesel emissions 

from stationary and mobile sources.” The commenters also stated that, as the most egregious 
11

indirect sources of fine PM are located in urban areas, an Indirect Source Review would help 

address environmental justice concerns while moving the State toward compliance with the 

Federal PM2.5 standards. (New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA), 

Environmental Research Foundation (ERF), Change to Win (CtW), International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

Response: Currently, The Federal Transportation Conformity Rule (40 C.F.R. § 93.100-129) 

provides the process by which the air quality impact of transportation plans, transportation 

improvement programs, and certain projects are analyzed. The agency preparing transportation 

plans (projections of twenty or more years), transportation improvement programs (projections 

of at least four years), or approving certain transportation projects must analyze the emissions 

expected from such a proposal in accordance with the Transportation Conformity Rule. For New 

Jersey, such plans are prepared by three Metropolitan Planning Organizations (North Jersey 

Transportation Planning Authority, South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization, and 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission). To some extent, this process already 

considers the impact of indirect sources. 

The NJDEP agrees that there may be opportunities for further emission reductions from 

additional indirect source evaluation and regulation. Indirect Source Review programs cited by 

the commenters will be evaluated in order to determine if they are a feasible way to reduce 

pollution from these sources in New Jersey. As time and resources allow, the NJDEP will 

investigate Indirect Source Review programs and will consider Indirect Source Review for 

possible inclusion in future SIPs. 

Department-initiated Changes 

In addition to the changes discussed above in the response to comment, the NJDEP made the 

following department-initiated changes when finalizing the document. Those changes are 

described here. 

1. New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP was proposed on September 15, 2008. References to the 

Regional Haze SIP revision were updated to reflect its proposal. 

2. New Jersey’s VOC and NOx RACT rules for 13 source categories were proposed on August 

4, 2008. Additionally, changes to New Jersey’s Diesel Smoke Rule were proposed on June 

16, 2008. References to these rules were updated to reflect their proposal. 

3. In Chapter 4 (Control Measures), for clarity, Table 4.1 (PM2.5 Control Measures) was 

combined with Table 4.6 (PM2.5 Control Measures Summary). The number of the new table 

is Table 4.5 (PM2.5 Control Measures Summary). Table numbers in this chapter were 

subsequently changed. In Table 4.5, “Certain Refinery Operations” was deleted because it is 

the same measure as “Refinery Enforcement Initiative” and “Refinery Enforcement 

Initiative” was renamed “Refinery Consent Decrees.” “Refineries - Fugitive Equipment 

Leaks” was marked as not being modeled. Addition clarifications were made to Table 4.5 

regarding Refinery Rules, Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators), ICI Boilers, and EGU 

Consent Decrees. 
12

4. In Chapter 5 (Attainment Demonstration), “Refineries - Fugitive Equipment Leaks” was 

removed from Table 5.1 because it was not included in the modeling. New Jersey’s RACT 

commitments were updated in Section 5.3.2.6.2. Also, a new section was added at 5.4 which 

addresses “Emission Reduction Credits from Shutdowns and Curtailments.” 

5. In Chapter 6 (Contingency Measures) and associated Appendix C (Contingency Measure 

Calculations), the refinery rules were replaced as a contingency measure with the refinery 

consent decrees. In Table 6.2, the benefits for Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) 

were updated. 

6. Chapter 8 (Section 110 Infrastructure Requirements), was changed to reflect updates 

regarding CAIR, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program, 

Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and Regional Haze. 

 

7. In Chapter 9 (Commitments and Requests for Future Action), for consistency with Table 4.5 

in Chapter 4, Chapter 6 and Appendix C (Contingency Measures), NJLEV (fleet turnover) 

was added to Table 9.1 as a contingency measure. Table 9.1 was also updated to more 

clearly describe New Jersey’s PM2.5 commitments. Additionally, editorial clarifications were 

made to Table 9.1. 

8. In Chapter 10 (Conclusions), Table 10.1 was removed because it was redundant to Table 9.1. 

9. In Appendix A7 (Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Analysis), the RACT 

commitments were updated based on feasibility and compliance dates, some of which are 

being modified in response to comments on the RACT rules. 

10. In Appendix C (Contingency Measure Calculations), editorial clarifications were made. On 

page 4, the benefits for Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) were updated. 

11. Two new attachments were added to Appendix B5-1: Attachment 1: Comparison of CAIR 

and CAIR Plus Proposal using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM®) and Appendix 

Attachment 2: Development of MANE-VU Mobile Source Projection Inventories.