Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0061-0621
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-12-17T05:00Z

2­
1
2.
Responses
to
Comments
EPA
Region
2
(
New
Jersey,
New
York,
Puerto
Rico,
and
Virgin
Islands)
2­
2
Comment:
1013a­
31
Region:
2
State:
NJ
Area:
New
York
 
N.
New
Jersey­
Long
Island,
NY­
NJ­
CT
Comment:
Ocean
and
Sussex
Counties
are
not
included
in
EPA's
recommended
nonattainment
area,
despite
their
being
part
of
the
New
York
CMSA.
These
counties
must
be
included
in
the
nonattainment
area.

EPA
Response:
On
April
1,
2003
and
February
13,
2004,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
issued
guidance
for
States
and
Tribes
to
use
in
identifying
nonattainment
areas.
A
nonattainment
area
is
defined
in
section
107(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
as
an
area
that
is
violating
an
ambient
air
quality
standard,
or
is
contributing
to
a
nearby
area
that
is
violating
the
standard.
If
an
area
meets
this
definition,
EPA
is
obligated
to
designate
the
area
as
nonattainment.

Once
we
determine
that
an
area
is
violating
the
standard,
the
next
step
is
to
determine
if
there
are
any
nearby
areas
that
are
contributing
to
the
violation
and
should
be
included
in
the
designated
nonattainment
area.
In
addition
to
the
important
contribution
from
longrange
transport,
we
believe
that
violations
which
we
find
in
urban
areas
reflect
significant
contributions
from
the
associated
CMSA/
MSA
as
well.
Therefore,
our
guidance
establishes
a
presumption
that
the
full
metropolitan
area
contributes
to
observed
violations
in
urban
areas.
Nevertheless,
our
final
set
of
boundaries
of
nonattainment
areas
will
reflect
an
area­
specific
overall
assessment
of
currently
available
technical
information
relating
to
nine
specific
factors:
air
quality
monitoring
information,
pollutant
emissions,
population
and
growth
in
the
area,
commuting,
vehicle
miles
traveled,
meteorology,
terrain,
jurisdictional
boundaries,
and
the
existing
level
of
control
of
emissions
sources.

New
Jersey
had
submitted
an
analysis
showing
why
some
of
their
counties
should
not
be
included
in
the
nonattainment
area.
Independent
of
this,
EPA
had
performed
its
own
technical
analysis
which
addressed
each
of
the
nine
factors
above.
The
EPA
analysis
demonstrated
that
these
counties
were
not
in
violation
of
the
PM2.5
standard
and
were
not
significantly
contributing
to
a
nonattainment
monitor.
Therefore,
EPA's
analysis
verified
the
State's
recommendation
concerning
Ocean
and
Sussex
counties.

Comment:
1013a­
32
Region:
2
State:
NJ
Area:
Philadelphia­
Wilmington,
PA­
NJ­
DE
Comment:
EPA
failed
to
include
Cape
May,
Cumberland
and
Salem
Counties
in
the
Philadelphia
nonattainment
area.
Cape
May
is
adjacent
to
the
CMSA,
but
is
home
to
the
B.
L.
England
coal­
fired
power
plant,
which
emitted
over
12,000
tons
of
SO2
and
almost
3,000
tons
of
NOx
in
2002.
Cumberland
and
Salem
Counties
are
within
the
CMSA;
2­
3
Salem
County
also
contains
a
coal­
fired
power
plant.
In
2002,
the
Deepwater
power
plant
in
Salem
County
emitted
almost
2,500
tons
of
SO2
and
almost
1,000
tons
of
NOx.
These
counties
must
not
be
left
out
of
the
nonattainment
area.

EPA
Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenter
for
his
comments
regarding
the
designations
for
the
PM2.5
standard.
EPA
considered
pollutant
emissions
in
our
technical
analysis
and
our
decision
regarding
the
final
set
of
boundaries
for
the
nonattainment
areas.
EPA's
explanation
for
not
including
Cape
May,
Cumberland,
and
Salem
Counties
in
the
Philadelphia
nonattainment
area
are
contained
in
the
TSD.

Comment:
1070­
1
Region:
2
State:
NJ
Area:
Philadelphia­
Wilmington,
PA­
NJ­
DE
Comment:
Commissioner
Bradley
Campbell
of
the
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
NJDEP)
recommends
that
EPA
designate
Burlington,
Camden,
and
Gloucester
counties
as
attainment.
He
notes
the
following
in
support
of
this
recommendation:

1.
These
counties
are
currently
monitoring
attainment.

2.
Meteorology
studies
show
that
prevailing
winds
blow
the
three
southern
New
Jersey
counties'
air
pollution
away
from
Philadelphia.
Meteorology
seems
to
have
been
ignored
in
the
EPA's
analysis
for
determining
how
portions
of
southern
New
Jersey
should
be
designated.

3.
EPA
never
announced
the
priority
in
which
they
would
consider
their
original
nine
factors
for
determining
nonattainment
areas
nor
did
they
establish
cutoffs
for
most
of
their
factors.
EPA
also
failed
to
establish
clear
relationships
between
monitored
PM2.5
design
values
and
factors
such
as
population
density
and
VMT.
Some
of
these
factors,
like
VMT
and
population,
have
a
relationship
to
emissions.
However,
emissions
from
the
counties
were
already
one
of
the
factors
that
the
agency
considered.
Separately
considering
VMT
and
population
at
best
amounts
to
double
counting
and
at
worst
is
irrelevant.

4.
Application
of
the
entire
suite
of
9
factors
has
led
to
confusing
and
probably
incorrect
results.
For
example,
upwind
sources
were
not
proposed
for
the
Philadelphia
area
and
probably
have
a
far
greater
impact
than
the
three
New
Jersey
counties.

5.
The
three
New
Jersey
counties
have
minimal
impact
on
Philadelphia
during
its
high
PM2.5
days
when
the
health
impacts
would
be
the
greatest,
and
on
most
other
days
throughout
the
year
as
well.
An
analysis
of
the
days
when
high
PM2.5
levels
occurs
in
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
shows
only
4
out
of
22
days
analyzed
in
a
three­
year
period,
when
emissions
from
New
Jersey
could
have
possibly
contributed
to
those
high
levels
in
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
2­
4
6.
If
EPA
disregards
this
evidence,
New
Jersey
will
face
an
increased
risk
of
Federal
sanctions
even
though
actions
taken
in
the
three
counties
will
be
largely
irrelevant
to
nonattainment
in
Philadelphia.

7.
Direct
PM2.5
and
PM2.5
precursor
emissions
coming
from
the
three
southern
New
Jersey
counties
are
not
as
significant
as
those
generated
within
the
Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania.
Southern
New
Jersey's
point
sources
are
orders
of
magnitude
smaller
than
those
throughout
Pennsylvania,
and
the
mobile
sources
(
which
are
limited
to
mostly
gasoline­
fueled
vehicles)
within
New
Jersey
predominately
stay
within
the
State's
borders.

The
NJDEP
also
believes
it
is
most
important
to
focus
on
local
PM2.5
contributions,
as
opposed
to
regional
PM2.5
contributions,
in
establishing
cohesive
nonattainment
areas.
The
majority
of
southern
New
Jersey's
emissions
are
regional
precursors
which
take
time
to
form
particles
in
the
atmosphere,
and
as
such,
should
not
be
considered
when
determining
the
boundaries
of
a
nonattainment
area.
Camden
speciation
data
reveals
that
southern
New
Jersey
PM2.5
emissions
are
mainly
from
directly
emitted
PM2.5
and
SO2
emissions,
and
to
lesser
extent,
NOx
emissions.
It
is
unreasonable
to
expect
that
regional
emissions
from
a
nearby
area
are
significantly
contributing
to
local
violations
of
the
standards.

A
review
of
the
NJDEP's
preliminary
2002
base
year
inventory
confirms
the
findings
from
the
NJDEP's
review
of
the
2001
NEI
emissions
(
i.
e.
that
southern
New
Jersey
has
relatively
low
levels
of
directly
emitted
PM2.5
emissions).
Further,
the
2002
preliminary
numbers
show
less
of
an
impact
from
directly
emitted
particles
than
the
2001
NEI
values.
The
NJDEP
staff
found
directly
emitted
PM2.5
contributions
from
New
Jersey
to
Pennsylvania
to
be
less
than
1
percent
of
the
standard.

8.
The
NJDEP
feels
that
the
EPA's
newly
developed
"
weighted
emissions
scoring
process"
is
arbitrary
and
seems
to
expand
nonattainment
areas
to
include
counties
monitoring
attainment
solely
because
of
their
relative
emissions
levels
without
any
demonstration
of
their
impact
on
the
violating
monitors.

EPA
Response:
On
April
1,
2003
and
February
13,
2004,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
issued
guidance
for
States
and
Tribes
to
use
in
identifying
nonattainment
areas.
A
nonattainment
area
is
defined
in
section
107(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
as
an
area
that
is
violating
an
ambient
air
quality
standard,
or
is
contributing
to
a
nearby
area
that
is
violating
the
standard.
If
an
area
meets
this
definition,
EPA
is
obligated
to
designate
the
area
as
nonattainment.

Once
we
determine
that
an
area
is
violating
the
standard,
the
next
step
is
to
determine
if
there
are
any
nearby
areas
that
are
contributing
to
the
violation
and
should
be
included
in
the
designated
nonattainment
area.
In
addition
to
the
important
contribution
from
longrange
transport,
we
believe
that
violations
which
we
find
in
urban
areas
reflect
significant
contributions
from
the
associated
Consolidated
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area/
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
(
CMSA/
MSA)
as
well.
Therefore,
our
guidance
2­
5
establishes
a
presumption
that
the
full
metropolitan
area
contributes
to
observed
violations
in
urban
areas.
In
fact,
the
very
establishment
of
CMSA's/
MSA's
by
the
Bureau
of
the
Census
recognizes
the
integral
economic
and
sociologic
connection
of
counties
within
the
metropolitan
areas.
Nevertheless,
our
final
set
of
boundaries
of
nonattainment
areas
reflects
an
area­
specific
overall
assessment
of
currently
available
technical
information
relating
to
nine
specific
factors:
air
quality
monitoring
information,
pollutant
emissions,
population
and
growth
in
the
area,
commuting,
vehicle
miles
traveled,
meteorology,
terrain,
jurisdictional
boundaries,
and
the
existing
level
of
control
of
emissions
sources.
EPA
did
not
weight
the
nine
factors
because
no
two
areas
are
identical.
What
may
be
important
at
one
location
may
not
be
as
important
at
another
location.
In
one
county
a
major
source
may
be
so
overwhelming
that
it
alone
may
set
the
stage
for
a
nonattainment
designation.
On
the
other
hand,
another
county
may
not
be
an
overwhelming
contributor
in
any
one
area
but
may
be
significant
in
several
categories
and
thus
require
a
nonattainment
designation.
Accordingly,
EPA
used
professional
judgment
as
opposed
to
a
straight
numerical
scale
(
or
score).

In
EPA's
June
29,
2004
letter
to
the
State
of
New
Jersey,
EPA
indicated
that
Burlington,
Camden,
and
Gloucester
counties
should
be
nonattainment
for
the
PM2.5
standard,
but
invited
the
states
to
submit
additional
justifications,
based
on
the
9
factors,
to
support
their
original
designation
recommendations.
The
TSD
fully
explains
EPA's
rationale
for
including
Burlington,
Camden,
and
Gloucester
counties
in
the
Philadelphia
nonattainment
area.

Responses
to
New
Jersey's
specific
comments
are
addressed
below:

1.
Although
Burlington,
Camden,
and
Gloucester
counties
do
not
have
violating
monitors,
EPA's
overall
assessment
of
available
technical
information
indicates
that
the
counties
contribute
to
Philadelphia
metropolitan
area
nonattainment.

2.
EPA
used
both
an
analysis
of
pollution
and
wind
rose
data,
and
24­
hour
back
trajectories
to
investigate
the
influence
of
weather
patterns
on
observed
PM2.5
mass
contributions.
Although
the
prevailing
winds
are
primarily
from
the
southwest,
there
are
times
when
the
wind
does
shift,
which
would
allow
emissions
from
the
three
New
Jersey
counties
to
impact
Philadelphia.
That,
coupled
with
the
fact
that
these
three
counties
have
large
sources
located
along
the
river
bordering
the
Philadelphia
nonattainment
area,
causes
the
EPA
to
determine
that
New
Jersey
contributes
to
nonattainment.

3.
The
boundaries
of
nonattainment
areas
reflect
an
area­
specific
overall
assessment
of
currently
available
technical
information
relating
to
the
nine
specific
factors.
EPA
did
not
weight
the
nine
factors,
prioritize
factors,
or
establish
specific
cutoffs
because
no
two
areas
are
identical.
EPA
used
professional
judgment
as
opposed
to
using
a
straight
numerical
scale
(
or
score),
therefore
double­
counting
did
not
occur.
One
factor
may
have
been
more
important
in
one
area
than
at
another
location.
For
example,
the
presence
of
large
point
sources
and
populations
in
close
proximity
to
violating
monitors
in
the
Philadelphia
metropolitan
area
were
important
factors
which
indicate
that
the
New
Jersey
counties
contribute
to
monitored
violations.
2­
6
EPA
recognizes
that
many
of
the
9
factors
are
indicative
of
emissions.
The
other
factors
also
indicate
contributions
that
may
not
be
reflected
in
the
emissions
estimates
for
each
county,
and
indicate
whether
the
counties
should
be
considered
an
integral
part
of
a
metropolitan
area
which
has
monitored
PM2.5
design
values
above
the
standard.

4.
Upwind
counties
with
sources
of
particulate
pollution
were
proposed
for
inclusion
in
the
Philadelphia
metropolitan
nonattainment
area
(
e.
g.,
Bucks
and
Montgomery
counties
in
Pennsylvania).
EPA
has
strived
for
consistency
in
proposing
areas
with
similar
contributions
to
a
nonattainment
area.

5.
Because
the
design
value
for
the
Philadelphia
metropolitan
area
is
based
on
the
annual
standard,
EPA
is
concerned
about
contributions
to
the
violating
monitors
from
the
three
southern
New
Jersey
counties
throughout
the
year,
on
both
high
and
low
PM2.5
days.
In
addition,
the
trajectory
analyses
show
back
trajectories
over
a
24
hour
period
only.
Since
the
New
Jersey
counties
contain
multiple
large
point
sources
concentrated
along
the
border
of
Philadelphia
and
Delaware
counties,
an
analysis
of
short
lived
trajectories
(
e.
g.,
20
minute)
would
be
needed
in
order
to
prove
that
New
Jersey
emissions
do
not
contribute
to
high
PM2.5
levels
in
Philadelphia.
Such
data
has
not
been
presented
by
the
State.

6.
EPA
is
obligated
to
designate
an
area
as
nonattainment
if
the
area
is
contributing
to
a
nearby
area
that
is
violating
the
standard.
The
counties
proposed
for
nonattainment
have
high
PM
direct
and
secondary
emissions
relative
to
the
other
counties
in
the
metropolitan
area.
Additional
reductions
in
the
entire
metropolitan
area
are
needed
in
order
for
nearby
counties
with
violating
monitors
to
achieve
attainment.

7.
EPA
recognizes
that
the
three
New
Jersey
counties
generate
less
emissions
than
some
of
the
counties
in
Pennsylvania.
However,
the
emissions
generated
are
not
insignificant,
and
there
is
not
a
major
difference
when
comparing
the
carbon
and
NOx
emissions
from
each
of
the
three
New
Jersey
counties
with
the
other
counties
on
the
Pennsylvania
side
of
the
Philadelphia
metropolitan
area.
For
example,
when
comparing
2001
NEI
county
totals
for
carbon,
Philadelphia,
Delaware,
Montgomery,
Chester,
and
Bucks
emitted
2,116
tons,
1,458
tons,
1,905
tons,
1,228
tons,
and
1,443
tons,
respectively,
of
carbon
compared
to
1,035
tons,
1,286
tons,
and
1,326
tons,
respectively,
for
Gloucester,
Camden,
and
Burlington.

We
do
not
believe
that
the
size
of
the
point
sources
in
New
Jersey
compared
to
the
size
of
the
point
sources
in
Pennsylvania
is
a
key
factor
in
determining
whether
New
Jersey
contributes
to
Philadelphia
nonattainment.
Additionally,
although
most
commuters
stay
within
New
Jersey,
the
state
has
not
provided
sufficient
evidence
that
the
large
number
of
motor
vehicles
entering
Philadelphia
from
New
Jersey
do
not
contribute
to
Philadelphia
nonattainment.

EPA
disagrees
with
the
State
commenter
hat
precursor
emissions
should
not
be
considered.
Although
it
is
recognized
that
precursors
do
need
time
to
form
in
the
atmosphere,
stagnation
effects,
variable
wind
conditions,
and
low
emission
releases
could
2­
7
result
in
precursor
emissions
impacting
nearby
areas.
The
Camden
speciation
data
is
also
not
relevant.

The
2002
NEI
emission
inventory
is
preliminary
and
has
not
undergone
rigorous
quality
assurance.
EPA
believes
that
the
2001
NEI
should
be
the
basis
for
the
PM
designations.
The
preliminary
2002
NEI
also
shows
an
increase
of
emissions
from
Burlington
County.

The
NJDEP
staff
analysis
showing
1
per
cent
PM
contribution
did
not
consider
the
impact
from
precursor
emissions.
EPA
also
believes
that
the
New
Jersey
analysis
may
be
underestimating
the
impact
of
PM
direct
emissions
from
the
local
emission
sources
concentrated
along
the
Delaware
River.

8.
EPA
uses
the
speciated
PM2.5
air
quality
data,
along
with
other
data,
to
help
determine
which
counties
in
the
area
are
contributing
to
the
violation.
In
identifying
counties
that
contribute
to
an
area's
violating
air
quality,
it
is
important
to
give
more
weight
to
emissions
(
sources)
that
contribute
to
the
excess
PM2.5
in
the
urban
area.
For
example,
a
ton
of
nitrogen
oxide
emitted
within
an
area
contributes
less
to
the
PM2.5
in
that
area
than
a
ton
of
organic
carbon
emissions.
Nitrogen
oxide
takes
time
to
form
into
PM2.5
in
the
atmosphere
and
therefore
is
more
of
a
regional
pollutant.
In
addition,
it
will
be
important
to
understand
which
emissions
are
mostly
contributing
to
an
area's
PM2.5
level
in
determining
what
sources
could
be
effectively
controlled
within
the
area.

To
give
each
county
in
an
urban
area
the
proper
"
weight"
for
their
"
contributing"
emissions,
the
emissions
in
the
county
must
be
adjusted
in
two
steps.
In
step
1,
we
must
determine
the
county's
percentage
of
the
violating
area's
total
emissions.
In
step
2,
we
adjust
this
percentage
by
the
violating
area's
excess
urban
emissions
for
the
pertinent
speciated
PM2.5
component.
In
doing
this,
we
calculate
the
excess
levels
associated
with
sulfates,
nitrates,
carbonaceous
matter
and
crustal
material.
These
components
represent
the
vast
majority
of
chemicals
that
make
up
PM2.5
in
urban
areas.

The
calculated
urban
excess
for
each
of
the
four
components
is
the
difference
between
the
speciated
PM2.5
components
for
an
urban
area
and
speciated
components
from
a
near­
by
rural
area.
While
it
may
seem
best
to
choose
a
"
rural"
FRM
(
total
mass)
monitor
and
an
"
urban"
FRM
monitor
for
purposes
of
estimating
the
mass
of
the
urban
excess,
this
would
not
allow
us
to
relate
the
air
quality
levels
to
the
area's
emissions.
This
situation
is
one
of
the
main
reasons
for
a
monitoring
network
for
speciated
PM2.5.
Accordingly,
we
are
using
the
speciated
PM2.5
data
from
rural
and
urban
monitors,
along
with
estimates
of
emissions
within
the
area,
to
identify
the
urban
sources
with
the
greatest
contribution
to
the
urban
excess
PM2.5.

It
is
also
important
to
note
that
the
PM2.5
(
air
quality)
weighted
emissions
(
and
scores)
are
considered
in
the
context
of
all
the
relevant
factors
in
determining
the
boundary
of
a
nonattainment
area.
We
consider
the
other
factors,
in
addition
to
air
quality
and
emissions,
in
identifying
the
counties
that
should
comprise
the
nonattainment
area.
As
described
above,
the
speciated
PM2.5
weighted
emissions
are
used
in
developing
a
ranking
score
(
weight)
for
each
county
in
a
potential
nonattainment
area.
In
developing
2­
8
these
scores,
we
do
not
intend
that
they
should
be
used
in
a
"
bright­
line"
manner.
Rather,
they
offer
a
basis
for
looking
closest
at
the
counties
in
an
area
that
may
contribute
the
most
to
the
elevated
PM2.5
in
the
area.
For
the
counties
with
the
highest
score,
we
look
at
the
other
information,
including
meteorology,
as
we
determine
the
collection
of
counties
in
a
nonattainment
area.

Comment:
1009­
1
Region:
2
State:
NY
Area:
New
York­
N.
New
Jersey­
Long
Island,
NY­
NJ­
CT
Comment:
Commenter
notes
that
the
New
York
State
DEC
staff
have
completed
an
initial
review
of
EPA's
technical
analysis
that
serve
as
the
basis
for
EPA's
proposed
modifications
to
New
York's
nonattainment
recommendation.
The
commenter
requests
EPA
to
respond
to
questions
regarding
the
following
factors:
emissions,
air
quality,
traffic
and
commuting
patterns,
expected
growth,
and
meteorology.
Finally,
the
commenter
requests
that
a
60­
day
review
of
EPA's
response
to
their
requests
of
information
be
granted
given
the
long­
term
ramifications
of
the
decisions.

EPA
Response:
Thank
you
for
your
July
21,
2004
letter
regarding
EPA's
PM2.5
designation
recommendations.
We
recognize
New
York's
need
to
gain
a
timely
understanding
of
the
technical
basis
for
EPA's
recommendations.
My
staff
has
already
begun
to
respond
directly
to
some
of
New
York's
questions.
They
have
scheduled
a
conference
call
with
your
staff
during
the
week
of
July
26,
2004
for
the
purpose
of
fully
explaining
EPA's
technical
rationale;
and
they
have
scheduled
a
follow­
up
meeting
in
your
offices
on
August
5,
at
which
time
we
will
undertake
to
answer
any
remaining
questions.

My
staff
has
advised
me
that
some
of
the
information
you
requested
in
your
letter
was
not
germane
to
EPA's
considerations
in
developing
its
recommendations
on
PM2.5
designations.
Nevertheless,
we
will
attempt
to
provide
you
with
responses
to
those
requests
as
quickly
as
possible.

You
asked
for
additional
time
to
consider
EPA's
recommendations.
EPA
Administrator
Leavitt
has
stated
publicly
that
EPA
intends
to
make
its
final
decision
by
November
17,
2004.
While
we
do
not
expect
that
we
will
be
able
to
provide
New
York
with
additional
time
after
September
1,
2004
to
submit
comments,
I
believe
that
this
schedule
provides
sufficient
time
to
consider
the
matter
fully.
2­
9
Comment:
1013a­
33
Region:
2
State:
NY
Area:
New
York­
N.
New
Jersey­
Long
Island,
NY­
NJ­
CT
Comment:
EPA
has
not
recommended
that
Duchess,
Putnam
and
Ulster
Counties
be
designated
nonattainment.
These
counties
are
all
part
of
the
New
York
CMSA
and
must
be
included
in
the
nonattainment
area.

EPA
Response:
On
April
1,
2003
and
February
13,
2004,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
issued
guidance
for
States
and
Tribes
to
use
in
identifying
nonattainment
areas.
A
nonattainment
area
is
defined
in
section
107(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
as
an
area
that
is
violating
an
ambient
air
quality
standard,
or
is
contributing
to
a
nearby
area
that
is
violating
the
standard.
If
an
area
meets
this
definition,
EPA
is
obligated
to
designate
the
area
as
nonattainment.

Once
we
determine
that
an
area
is
violating
the
standard,
the
next
step
is
to
determine
if
there
are
any
nearby
areas
that
are
contributing
to
the
violation
and
should
be
included
in
the
designated
nonattainment
area.
In
addition
to
the
important
contribution
from
longrange
transport,
we
believe
that
violations
which
we
find
in
urban
areas
reflect
significant
contributions
from
the
associated
CMSA/
MSA
as
well.
Therefore,
our
guidance
establishes
a
presumption
that
the
full
metropolitan
area
contributes
to
observed
violations
in
urban
areas.
Nevertheless,
our
final
set
of
boundaries
of
nonattainment
areas
will
reflect
an
area­
specific
overall
assessment
of
currently
available
technical
information
relating
to
nine
specific
factors:
air
quality
monitoring
information,
pollutant
emissions,
population
and
growth
in
the
area,
commuting,
vehicle
miles
traveled,
meteorology,
terrain,
jurisdictional
boundaries,
and
the
existing
level
of
control
of
emissions
sources.

New
York
had
submitted
an
analysis
showing
why
some
of
their
counties
should
not
be
included
in
the
nonattainment
area.
Independent
of
this,
EPA
had
performed
their
own
technical
analysis
which
addressed
each
of
the
nine
factors
above.
The
EPA
analysis
demonstrated
that
these
counties
were
not
in
violation
of
the
PM2.5
standard
and
were
not
significantly
contributing
to
a
nonattainment
monitor.
Therefore,
EPA's
analysis
verified
the
State's
recommendation
concerning
Duchess,
Putnam
and
Ulster
counties.

Comment:
1071­
1
Region:
2
State:
NY
Area:
New
York­
N.
New
Jersey­
Long
Island,
NY­
NJ­
CT
Comment:
The
commenter,
on
behalf
of
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(
NYSDEC),
expresses
concern
about
EPA's
designation
process,
as
EPA
has
not
followed
its
own
guidance.
States
were
told
that
the
PM
implementation
guidance
would
be
released
prior
to
making
recommendations.
Thus
far,
it
has
yet
to
be
issued.
Guidance
which
was
to
be
issued
regarding
the
time
frame
which
was
consistent
with
the
2­
10
CAA
has
been
superceded
by
transmittal
letters,
methods
of
analysis
that
are
being
employed
have
been
put
forth
without
input
from
the
affected
parties
and
EPA
has
failed
to
give
consideration
to
its
own
published
research.
Specific
comments
are
summarized
below:

1.
Based
on
the
results
from
the
single
monitor
in
New
Haven,
Connecticut,
EPA
staff
conducted
an
analysis
which
reviewed,
among
other
things,
emissions,
population,
traffic
and
commuting
patterns,
and
pollution
roses
to
determine
that
Suffolk,
Nassau,
Westchester,
Rockland
and
Orange
were
contributors
to
the
nonattainment
levels
recorded
at
the
Stiles
Street
monitor
in
New
Haven,
Connecticut.
This
analysis
contradicts
a
source
characterization
study
that
EPA
performed
by
speciating
the
collected
PM2.5
data
from
eight
cities
around
the
country.
This
study
found
that
58
percent
of
the
total
PM2.5
mass
was
consistent
with
regional
and
transported
sources
of
this
pollutant.
This
study
would
seem
to
indicate
that
the
five
counties
are
not
significant
contributors
to
the
Stiles
Street
monitor.
Proposing
these
counties
as
nonattainment
would
place
a
burden
on
areas
in
New
York
State
that
do
not
contribute
significantly
to
nonattainment
and
cannot
contribute
to
achieving
attainment.

2.
New
York
implements
measures
to
control
precursors
to
PM2.5
on
stationary
and
mobile
sources.

3.
The
commenter
notes
that
EPA
uses
a
meteorology
analysis
method
with
regard
to
the
Stiles
Street
monitor
in
New
Haven,
Connecticut
that
is
similar
to
the
method
employed
by
the
NY
DEC
in
its
February
13,
2004
demonstration.
That
demonstration
showed
that
emissions
from
the
supplemental
counties
do
not
contribute
to
the
nonattainment
readings
in
New
York
and
Bronx
Counties.

4.
To
designate
the
supplemental
counties,
which
are
clearly
in
attainment,
as
contributing
to
a
problem
at
the
Stiles
Street
monitor,
when
that
monitor
meets
the
definition
of
a
microscale
monitor,
is
an
error.

5.
The
commenter
is
concerned
that
EPA
is
ignoring
existing
research
and
analysis
regarding
the
nature
of
PM2.5
and
the
unique
behaviors
of
direct
and
secondary
emissions
over
distance.
EPA
needs
to
take
into
consideration
not
only
factors
that
can
serve
as
indicators
of
relative
emission
volumes
like
VMT
and
populations,
but
also
how
far
PM2.5
impact
from
the
sources
reach.

6.
The
"
urban
excess"
method
arbitrarily
creates
a
relationship
between
urban
excess
in
a
region
and
the
emissions
from
the
counties
near
that
urban
area.
EPA
has
not
justified
this
concept
and
the
New
York
DEC
believes
that
a
pure
evaluation
of
urban
excess
actually
provides
support
for
the
original
proposal
for
a
five
county
nonattainment
area.

7.
The
urban
excess
method
has
the
following
limitations:
the
two
monitoring
networks­
IMPROVE
and
STN,
have
different
sampling
and
analysis
methodologies;
when
the
average
concentration
of
a
pollutant
at
a
rural
site
is
higher
than
the
corresponding
value
2­
11
at
the
urban
site,
the
urban
excess
is
zero;
and
the
method
does
not
take
into
account
prevailing
meteorology.

A
detailed
technical
nine­
factor
analysis
is
attached
to
the
comment
letter.

EPA
Response:
On
April
1,
2003
and
February
13,
2004,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
issued
guidance
for
States
and
Tribes
to
use
in
identifying
nonattainment
areas.
A
nonattainment
area
is
defined
in
section
107(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
as
an
area
that
is
violating
an
ambient
air
quality
standard,
or
is
contributing
to
a
nearby
area
that
is
violating
the
standard.
If
an
area
meets
this
definition,
EPA
is
obligated
to
designate
the
area
as
nonattainment.

Once
we
determine
that
an
area
is
violating
the
standard,
the
next
step
is
to
determine
if
there
are
any
nearby
areas
that
are
contributing
to
the
violation
and
should
be
included
in
the
designated
nonattainment
area.
In
addition
to
the
important
contribution
from
longrange
transport,
we
believe
that
violations
which
we
find
in
urban
areas
reflect
significant
contributions
from
the
associated
Consolidated
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area/
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
(
CMSA/
MSA)
as
well.
Therefore,
our
guidance
establishes
a
presumption
that
the
full
metropolitan
area
contributes
to
observed
violations
in
urban
areas.
In
fact,
the
very
establishment
of
CMSA's/
MSA's
by
the
Bureau
of
the
Census
recognizes
the
integral
economic
and
sociologic
connection
of
counties
within
the
metropolitan
areas.
Nevertheless,
our
final
set
of
boundaries
of
nonattainment
areas
reflects
an
area­
specific
overall
assessment
of
currently
available
technical
information
relating
to
nine
specific
factors:
air
quality
monitoring
information,
pollutant
emissions,
population
and
growth
in
the
area,
commuting,
vehicle
miles
traveled,
meteorology,
terrain,
jurisdictional
boundaries,
and
the
existing
level
of
control
of
emissions
sources.
EPA
did
not
weight
the
nine
factors
because
no
two
areas
are
identical.
What
may
be
important
at
one
location
may
not
be
as
important
at
another
location.
In
one
county
a
major
source
may
be
so
overwhelming
that
it
alone
may
set
the
stage
for
a
nonattainment
designation.
On
the
other
hand,
another
county
may
not
be
an
overwhelming
contributor
in
any
one
area
but
may
be
significant
in
several
categories
and
thus
require
a
nonattainment
designation.
Accordingly,
EPA
used
professional
judgment
as
opposed
to
a
straight
numerical
scale
(
or
score).

In
EPA's
June
29,
2004
letter
to
the
State
of
New
York,
EPA
indicated
that
Nassau,
Suffolk,
Westchester,
Orange,
and
Rockland
counties
should
be
nonattainment
for
the
PM2.5
standard,
but
invited
the
states
to
submit
additional
justifications,
based
on
the
9
factors,
to
support
their
original
designation
recommendations.
The
TSD
fully
explains
EPA's
rational
for
including
Nassau,
Suffolk,
Orange,
Rockland
and
Westchester
counties
in
the
New
York
Metropolitan
nonattainment
area.

Responses
to
New
York's
specific
comments
are
addressed
below:

1.
The
supplemental
data
provided
by
the
State,
including
the
EPA
source
characterization
study,
is
indicative
of
a
strong
regional
component.
EPA
agrees
that
regional
transport
is
an
important
issue
and
is
currently
addressing
the
issue
of
regionally
2­
12
transported
emissions
via
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
(
CAIR).
However,
the
data
presented
by
the
State
does
not
rule
out
significant
contributions
to
violating
monitors
in
the
Bronx
and
New
York
from
local
emission
sources
in
Suffolk,
Nassau,
Orange
and
Rockland
and
Westchester
Counties.
Large
populations,
large
number
of
commuters
to
New
York
City,
and
limited
transportation
routes
(
especially
Long
Island)
for
goods
and
service
delivery,
and
the
presence
of
violating
monitors
near
those
major
transportation
routes
are
indicative
of
a
significant
mobile
source
contribution.
Although
the
State
claims
that
mobile
sources
only
contribute
approximately
5
percent
of
total
PM2.5
emissions,
this
figure
is
a
county
wide
average.
The
impact
of
these
emissions
seem
to
be
more
pronounced
near
the
violating
monitors
adjacent
to
the
major
transportation
routes.
The
State
estimate
also
does
not
take
into
effect
mobile
source
precursor
emissions.

2.
EPA
recognizes
that
New
York
is
implementing
measures
to
control
precursors
to
PM2.5
on
stationary
and
mobile
sources.
However,
EPA
is
obligated
to
designate
an
area
as
nonattainment
if
the
area
is
contributing
to
a
nearby
area
that
is
violating
the
standard.
The
additional
counties
continue
to
have
high
PM
direct
and
secondary
emissions
relative
to
the
other
counties
in
the
metropolitan
area.
Additional
reductions
are
needed
in
order
for
nearby
counties
with
violating
monitors
to
be
in
attainment.

3.
EPA
used
both
an
analysis
of
pollution
and
wind
rose
data,
and
24­
hour
back
trajectories
to
investigate
the
influence
of
weather
patterns
on
observed
PM
2.5
mass
contributions.
Analysis
of
the
data
shows
that
annual
average
PM
2.5
concentrations
in
the
New
York
City
area
are
influenced
by
emissions
in
any
direction
at
various
times,
but
less
likely
to
be
influenced
by
emissions
from
Westchester,
Suffolk,
Nassau,
Orange,
and
Rockland
Counties.

4.
EPA
has
reviewed
additional
data
submitted
by
the
State
of
Connecticut
and
concurs
that
the
New
Haven
site
should
be
classified
as
a
microscale
site
and
that
the
emissions
from
the
supplemental
counties
should
not
be
considered
as
contributing
to
a
problem
at
the
Stiles
Street
monitor.
The
supplemental
counties
are
recommended
for
nonattainment
designation
based
on
their
contribution
to
violating
monitors
in
New
York
and
Bronx
counties.

5.
EPA
has
not
ignored
existing
research
and
analysis
regarding
the
nature
of
PM2.5
and
the
unique
behaviors
of
direct
and
secondary
emissions
over
distance.
EPA
has
found
that
PM2.5
is
a
pervasive
pollutant
and
is
not
confined
to
small
areas.
Based
on
the
CAA
and
EPA
guidance,
the
presumptive
nonattainment
area
is
all
of
the
counties
in
the
1999
OMB
boundary
definitions.
The
state
has
not
provided
an
adequate
technical
analysis
demonstrating
that
Nassau,
Suffolk,
Orange,
Rockland
and
Westchester
counties
did
not
contribute
to
violations
in
the
CMSA/
MSA.

6.
EPA
uses
the
speciated
PM2.5
air
quality
data,
along
with
other
data,
to
help
determine
which
counties
in
the
area
are
contributing
to
the
violation.
In
identifying
counties
that
contribute
to
an
area's
violating
air
quality,
it
is
important
to
give
more
weight
to
emissions
(
sources)
that
contribute
to
the
excess
PM2.5
in
the
urban
area.
For
example,
a
ton
of
nitrogen
oxide
emitted
within
an
area
contributes
less
to
the
PM2.5
in
that
area
2­
13
than
a
ton
of
organic
carbon
emissions.
Nitrogen
oxide
takes
time
to
form
into
PM2.5
in
the
atmosphere
and
therefore
is
more
of
a
regional
pollutant.
In
addition,
it
will
be
important
to
understand
which
emissions
are
mostly
contributing
to
an
area's
PM2.5
level
in
determining
what
sources
could
be
effectively
controlled
within
the
area.

To
give
each
county
in
an
urban
area
the
proper
"
weight"
for
their
"
contributing"
emissions,
the
emissions
in
the
county
must
be
adjusted
in
two
steps.
In
step
1,
we
must
determine
the
county's
percentage
of
the
violating
area's
total
emissions.
In
step
2,
we
adjust
this
percentage
by
the
violating
area's
excess
urban
emissions
for
the
pertinent
speciated
PM2.5
component.
In
doing
this,
we
calculate
the
excess
levels
associated
with
sulfates,
nitrates,
carbonaceous
matter
and
crustal
material.
These
components
represent
the
vast
majority
of
chemicals
that
make
up
PM2.5
in
urban
areas.

The
calculated
urban
excess
for
each
of
the
four
components
is
the
difference
between
the
speciated
PM2.5
components
for
an
urban
area
and
speciated
components
from
a
nearby
rural
area.
While
it
may
seem
best
to
choose
a
"
rural"
FRM
(
total
mass)
monitor
and
an
"
urban"
FRM
monitor
for
purposes
of
estimating
the
mass
of
the
urban
excess,
this
would
not
allow
us
to
relate
the
air
quality
levels
to
the
area's
emissions.
This
situation
is
one
of
the
main
reasons
for
a
monitoring
network
for
speciated
PM2.5.
Accordingly,
we
are
using
the
speciated
PM2.5
data
from
rural
and
urban
monitors,
along
with
estimates
of
emissions
within
the
area,
to
identify
the
urban
sources
with
the
greatest
contribution
to
the
urban
excess
PM2.5.

It
is
also
important
to
note
that
the
PM2.5
(
air
quality)
weighted
emissions
(
and
scores)
are
considered
in
the
context
of
all
the
relevant
factors
in
determining
the
boundary
of
a
nonattainment
area.
We
consider
the
other
factors,
in
addition
to
air
quality
and
emissions,
in
identifying
the
counties
that
should
comprise
the
nonattainment
area.
As
described
above,
the
speciated
PM2.5
weighted
emissions
are
used
in
developing
a
ranking
score
(
weight)
for
each
county
in
a
potential
nonattainment
area.
In
developing
these
scores,
we
do
not
intend
that
they
should
be
used
in
a
"
bright­
line"
manner.
Rather,
they
offer
a
basis
for
looking
closest
at
the
counties
in
an
area
that
may
contribute
the
most
to
the
elevated
PM2.5
in
the
area.
For
the
counties
with
the
highest
score,
we
look
at
the
other
information,
including
meteorology,
as
we
determine
the
collection
of
counties
in
a
nonattainment
area.

7.
Although
they
use
similar
sampling
and
analytical
methods,
EPA
recognizes
that
the
STN
and
IMPROVE
networks
measure
different
species
and
employ
different
operational
protocols.
EPA
has
taken
these
differences
into
account
when
calculating
urban
excess.
Data
handling
protocols
employed
by
the
EPA
to
put
aerosol
composition
data
derived
from
both
these
networks
on
an
as­
similar­
as­
possible
basis
are
referenced
below.

Reference
2­
14
1.
Rao,
V.;
Frank,
N.;
Rush,
A;
Dimmick,
F;
Chemical
Speciation
of
PM2.5
in
Urban
and
Rural
Areas.
U.
S.
National
Air
Quality
and
Emissions
Trends
Report,
2003
Special
Studies
Edition,
EPA­
454/
R­
03­
005;
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC,
September
2003.