Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey Ozone Attainment Demonstration, 21578-21588 [E9-10663]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
21578
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules
authority to address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable
and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 28, 2009.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New
England.
[FR Doc. E9–10660 Filed 5–7–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R02–OAR–2008–0497, FRL–8901–3]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Jersey
Ozone Attainment Demonstration
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing action on the
ozone attainment demonstration portion
of a comprehensive State
Implementation Plan revision submitted
by New Jersey to meet Clean Air Act
requirements for attaining the 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality
standard. EPA is proposing to
disapprove New Jersey’s demonstration
of attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket Number EPA–R02–
OAR–2008–0497, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.
• Fax: 212–637–3901
• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air
Programs Branch, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007–1866.
• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner,
Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:31 May 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
Floor, New York, New York 10007–
1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office’s normal
hours of operation. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2008–0497.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters or any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II Office, Air Programs Branch,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007–1866. EPA requests, if
at all possible, that you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view
the hard copy of the docket. You may
view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Kelly (kelly.bob@epa.gov) Air
Programs Branch, Environmental
Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007–
1866, (212) 637–4249.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
II. Background Information
A. History and Time Frame for the State’s
Attainment Demonstration SIP
B. Moderate Area Requirements
C. Clean Air Act Requirement for MultiState Ozone Nonattainment Areas
III. What Was Included in New Jersey’s SIP
Submittals?
IV. EPA’s Review and Technical Information
A. Attainment Demonstration
1. What Are the Components of a Modeled
Attainment Demonstration?
2. What Were the Results of the State’s
Weight of Evidence Analysis?
a. EPA Requirements for the Weight of
Evidence Analysis
b. State’s Weight of Evidence Argument
and EPA’s Evaluation
c. Summary of Weight of Evidence
Discussion
3. What Is EPA’s Evaluation?
V. What Are the Consequences of a
Disapproved SIP?
A. What Are the Act’s Provisions for
Sanctions?
B. What Federal Implementation Plan
Provisions Apply if a State Fails to
Submit an Approvable Plan?
C. What Are the Ramifications Regarding
Conformity?
VI. What Are EPA’s Conclusions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Action is EPA Proposing?
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has reviewed New Jersey’s
comprehensive State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision for attaining the 0.08
ppm 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS or
standard) 1 in the State of New Jersey’s
moderate nonattainment areas along
with other related Clean Air Act (Act)
requirements necessary to insure
attainment of the standard. The EPA is
proposing to disapprove New Jersey’s 8hour ozone attainment demonstration
because the EPA has determined that
the photochemical modeling does not
demonstrate attainment and the weight
of evidence analysis that New Jersey
uses to support the attainment
demonstration does not provide
1 Unless otherwise specifically noted in the
action, references to the 8-hour ozone standard are
to the 0.08 ppm ozone standard promulgated in
1997.
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules
sufficient evidence to provide
confidence that the two nonattainment
areas located in New Jersey will attain
the NAAQS by the June 2010 deadline.
EPA’s analysis and findings are
discussed in this proposed rulemaking
and a more detailed discussion is
contained in the Technical Support
Document for this Proposal which is
available on line at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number
EPA–R02–OAR–2008–0497.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
II. Background Information
A. History and Time Frame for the
State’s Attainment Demonstration SIP
In 1997, EPA revised the health-based
NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8hour ozone standard based on scientific
evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower
ozone concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood
when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
standard was set. EPA determined that
the 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially
with regard to children and adults who
are active outdoors, and individuals
with a pre-existing respiratory disease,
such as asthma.
On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA
finalized its attainment/nonattainment
designations for areas across the country
with respect to the 8-hour ozone
standard. These actions became
effective on June 15, 2004. In addition,
EPA promulgated its Phase 1 Rule for
implementation of the 8-hour standard,
which provided how areas designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard would be classified (April 30,
2004 (69 FR 23951)). The entire state of
New Jersey is classified as being in
nonattainment, divided between two 8hour ozone moderate nonattainment
areas it shares with other states, the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area,
and the Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE
nonattainment area. The New Jersey
portion of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area consists of the
following New Jersey counties: Bergen,
Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex,
Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset,
Sussex, Union and Warren. The New
Jersey portion of the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE nonattainment area consists of the
following New Jersey counties: Atlantic,
Burlington, Camden, Cape May,
Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean
and Salem.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:31 May 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
These designations triggered the Act’s
requirements under section 182(b) for
moderate nonattainment areas,
including a requirement to submit an
attainment demonstration. EPA’s Phase
2 8-hour ozone implementation rule,
published on November 29, 2005 (70 FR
71612) (Phase 2 Rule) specifies that
states must submit attainment
demonstrations for their nonattainment
areas to the EPA by no later than three
years from the effective date of
designation, that is, by June 15, 2007. 40
CFR 51.908(a)
B. Moderate Area Requirements
On November 29, 2005, EPA
published the Phase 2 Implementation
rule which addresses the control
obligations that apply to areas
designated nonattainment for the 8-hour
NAAQS. Among other things, the Phase
1 and Phase 2 Rules outline the SIP
requirements and deadlines for various
requirements in areas designated as
moderate nonattainment. For such areas
modeling and attainment
demonstrations with projection year
emission inventories were due by June
15, 2007, along with reasonable further
progress plans, reasonably available
control measures, motor vehicle
emissions budgets and contingency
measures (40 CFR 51.908(a), and (c)
59.910, 59.912). This action addresses
New Jersey’s demonstration of
attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard, which for moderate areas is to
be attained by the ozone season before
the attainment date of June 2010. In
order to demonstrate attainment by June
2010, the area must adopt and
implement all controls necessary for
attainment by the beginning of the 2009
ozone season and demonstrate that the
level of the standard will be met during
the 2009 ozone season.
C. Clean Air Act Requirement for MultiState Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Section 182(j) of the Clean Air Act
requires each state within a multi-state
ozone nonattainment area to specifically
use photochemical grid modeling and
take all reasonable steps to coordinate,
substantively and procedurally, the
revisions and implementation of State
implementation plans applicable to the
nonattainment area concerned. Under
this subsection of the Clean Air Act,
EPA may not approve any SIP revision
for a State that fails to comply with
these requirements.
III. What Was Included in New Jersey’s
SIP Submittals?
After completing the appropriate
public notice and comment procedures,
New Jersey made a submittal in order to
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21579
address the Act’s 8-hour ozone
attainment requirements identified in
Section II.A.2. On October 29, 2007,
New Jersey submitted a comprehensive
8-hour ozone SIP for the New Jersey
portions of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT and the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment areas. It
included attainment demonstrations,
reasonable further progress (RFP) plans
for 2008 and 2009, reasonably available
control measures analyses for both
areas, contingency measures, on-road
motor vehicle emission budgets, and
general conformity emission budgets for
McGuire Air Force Base and Lakehurst
Naval Air Station. This SIP revision was
subject to notice and comment by the
public and the State addressed the
comments received on the proposed
SIPs before adopting the plans and
submitting them for EPA review and
approval into the SIP.
Only the attainment demonstration is
evaluated in this proposal. EPA has
evaluated and proposed action on the
other portions of New Jersey’s SIP in a
separate Federal Register action. See 74
FR 2945, January 16, 2009.
IV. EPA’s Review and Technical
Information
A. Attainment Demonstration
1. What Are the Components of a
Modeled Attainment Demonstration?
Section 110(a)(2)(k) of the Clean Air
Act requires states to prepare air quality
modeling to demonstrate how they will
meet ambient air quality standards. EPA
determined that states must use
photochemical grid modeling, or any
other analytical method determined by
the Administrator to be at least as
effective, to demonstrate attainment of
the ozone health-based standard in areas
classified as ‘moderate’ or above, and to
do so by the required attainment date.
See 40 CFR 51.908(c). In 40 CFR 51.903,
EPA specified how areas would be
classified with regard to the 8-hour
ozone standard set by EPA in 1997. EPA
followed these procedures and
classified the Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment areas as
moderate (69 FR 23858). Since the
attainment date is June 2010 for
moderate areas, these areas must
achieve emission reductions by the
beginning of the ozone season of 2009
in order for ozone concentrations to be
reduced and meet the level of the
standard during the last complete ozone
season before the 2010 deadline. See 40
CFR 51.908(d).
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
21580
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules
addition, it indicates that emissions
from large combustion sources are
transported eastward by upper level
winds to the east coast, adding to the
ozone formed locally.
The Ozone Transport Commission’s
(OTC’s) Modeling Committee developed
a protocol for modeling the ozone
problem in the northeastern United
States. The OTC Modeling Committee
coordinated preparing and running the
photochemical grid model. It chose the
Community Multi-scale Air Quality
Model (CMAQ) as the photochemical
grid model of choice. EPA concurs that
this model is appropriate for modeling
the formation and distribution of ozone.
The model domain covered almost all of
the eastern United States, with a highresolution grid covering the states in the
northeast ozone transport region,
including New Jersey.
The OTC Modeling Committee used
weather data for the entire 2002 ozone
season in the CMAQ. 2002 was the base
year for the attainment plans and the
year of the emission inventory used in
the base year modeling. Using a full
ozone season covers many different
weather conditions when ozone
episodes occur and exceeds EPA’s
recommendations for episode selection.
The OTC Modeling Committee used a
Mesoscale Meteorological model,
version five (MM5), a weather forecast
model developed by Pennsylvania State
EPA’s photochemical modeling
guidance is found at Guidance on the
Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and
Regional Haze, EPA–454/B–07–002,
April 2007. The photochemical
modeling guidance is divided into two
parts. One part describes how to use a
photochemical grid model for ozone to
assess whether an area will come into
attainment of the air quality standard. A
second part describes how the user
should perform supplemental analyses,
using various analytical methods, to
determine if the model overpredicts,
underpredicts, or accurately predicts the
air quality improvement projected to
occur by the attainment date. The
guidance indicates that states should
review these supplemental analyses, in
combination with the modeling
analysis, in a ‘‘weight of evidence’’
assessment to determine whether each
area is likely to achieve timely
attainment.
New Jersey’s SIP submittal (also
referred to as the New Jersey SIP)
addresses each of the elements of a
modeling attainment demonstration.
The submittal explains how on warm,
sunny days, winds at the surface and
aloft move emissions from sources of
ozone-forming chemicals within and
outside New Jersey to create high ozone
concentrations in New Jersey. In
University and the National Center for
Atmospheric Research for the weather
conditions used by the photochemical
grid model. Details about how the states
used the MM5 model are in Appendix
D4 of New Jersey’s SIP submittal.
States across the eastern United States
provided emissions information from
their sources to be used in the model.
The Mid Atlantic Regional Air
Management Association (MARAMA)
collected and quality assured the states’
emissions data and processed these data
for the photochemical grid model to use.
The states also included the control
measures that were already adopted as
well as the control measures that the
state was committing to adopt from a
list of ‘‘Beyond On the Way’’ (BOTW)
control measures. The lists of control
measures provided by the states to be
included in the modeling are
summarized in Table 1. Emissions data
for the model from outside the
Northeast was obtained from other
regional planning organizations. States
provided projected emissions for 2009
that account for emission changes due
to regulations the states plan to
implement by the beginning of the 2009
ozone season, as well as expected
growth. The modeling uses these
emissions to calculate ozone
concentrations for the attainment ozone
season of 2009.
TABLE 1—OZONE TRANSPORT REGION-WIDE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE 2009 BOTW MODEL RUN
Consumer
products
2005/
2009
PFC
2005/
2009
NY NAA:
Connecticut ...............
X
X
New Jersey ...............
X
X
New York ..................
X
X
Phila. NAA:
Delaware ...................
X
X
Maryland ...................
X
X
New Jersey ...............
X
X
Pennsylvania .............
X
X
Other States:
Maine ........................
X
X
New Hampshire ........
X
X
Vermont ..................... .............. ..............
Massachusetts ..........
X
..............
Rhode Island .............
X
X
DC .............................
X
X
Asphalt
paving
ICI boilers—area sources
ICI boilers—non-EGU point sources
Adhesives &
< 25
25–50
50–100
< 25
25–50
50–100
100–250
>250
sealants mmBtu/hr mmBtu/hr mmBtu/hr mmBtu/hr mmBtu/hr mmBtu/hr mmBtu/hr mmBtu/hr
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
................ ................
X
X
X
X
X
Cement
kilns
Glass
furnaces
Asphalt
plants
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
................
X
..............
X
X
..............
X
X
X
X
................ ................ ................ ................
................ ................ ................ ................
................
X
X
X
................ ................ ................ ................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
X
................
X
................ ................
................ .............. .............. ..............
................
X
X
..............
................ .............. .............. ..............
................ ..............
X
..............
..............
X
................ ................ ................ ................
X
.............. ................ ................ ................ ................
.............. .............. ................ ................ ................ ................
X
X
................ ................ ................ ................
X
X
................ ................ ................ ................
X
X
................ ................ ................ ................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................ .............. ..............
X
................ .............. .............. ..............
................
X
X
X
X
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
X
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
X
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
*Source: MACTEC. Development of Emission Projections for 2009, 2012, and 2018 for NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources in the MANE–VU Region, Final TSD. Prepared for the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management Association by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., February 28, 2007.
The states that share nonattainment
areas with New Jersey have chosen to
adopt different sets of control strategies,
as shown in Table 1. This Table does
not include additional measures that
New Jersey has labeled as ‘‘quantifiable
additional measures’’ and
‘‘unquantifiable additional measures.’’
These additional measures, that New
Jersey’s SIP submittal indicates are
necessary to show attainment of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:31 May 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
ozone standard, were not included in
the photochemical grid modeling. Some,
but not all, of New Jersey’s neighboring
states are planning to implement these
additional measures.
The performance of the CMAQ
photochemical grid model in predicting
ozone, and the chemicals that form
ozone, met EPA’s guidelines for model
performance. The model outputs are
generally consistent with the day-to-day
patterns of observed data, with low bias
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and error. The OTC Modeling
Committee noted that the modeling
system tends to overpredict low
concentrations and slightly
underpredict peak concentrations. EPA
concurs with New Jersey’s assessment
that the model was properly set up, met
all EPA performance requirements and
was appropriate for use in New Jersey’s
nonattainment areas.
For the attainment analysis, the states
used the results from the photochemical
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules
grid model in a relative sense, as
recommended by EPA’s photochemical
modeling guidance, by calculating the
difference between ozone predicted by
the photochemical grid model in 2002
and ozone predicted using the emission
controls New Jersey and other states
planned to have in place by 2009.2 To
meet EPA’s attainment test, when the
difference in ozone from 2002 to 2009
is applied to the baseline air quality
data centered in the base year of 2002,
the resulting 2009 prediction must be
that ozone is less than 85 parts per
billion (ppb) at all monitoring stations.
In summary, the basic photochemical
grid modeling used by New Jersey in its
SIP submittal meets EPA’s guidelines
and, when used with the methods
recommended in EPA’s modeling
guidance, is acceptable to EPA. When
New Jersey applies EPA’s methods to its
data, using the photochemical grid
model that includes the modeled
emission reduction strategies prepared
by New Jersey and the OTC states, it
predicts that ozone levels in the
attainment year would be 92 ppb in the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-DE-MD and 90 ppb in the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment areas.
Thus, the photochemical model predicts
New Jersey will not reach the 84 ppb
concentration level that marks
attainment of the ozone standard by the
2009 ozone season.
2. What Were the Results of the State’s
Weight of Evidence Analysis?
a. EPA Requirements for the Weight of
Evidence Analysis
EPA’s photochemical modeling
guidance strongly recommends states
complement the photochemical air
quality modeling in situations where
modeling predicts the area to be close to
(within several parts per billion of) the
ozone standard. While this is not the
case in New Jersey where
photochemical modeling predicts levels
significantly greater than the ozone
standard, New Jersey nevertheless chose
to perform additional analyses to
determine if attainment could be
demonstrated. EPA can accept results of
additional analyses to be used in a
weight of evidence determination to
show that attainment is likely in spite
of photochemical modeling predictions
to the contrary. However, the greater the
difference between the ozone standard
and the photochemical modeling
predictions, the more compelling the
additional evidence produced by these
additional analyses needs to be. EPA
notes in its guidance that if the
concentration predicted by the
photochemical model is 88 ppb or
higher, it is far less likely that the more
qualitative arguments made in a weight
of evidence determination can be
sufficiently convincing to conclude that
the ozone standard will be attained. In
New Jersey’s case, the photochemical
model predictions of 92 ppb in the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-DE-MD and 90 ppb in the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment areas
exceed 88 ppb. Thus the evidence
needed to show that these areas will
actually attain the ozone standard,
despite the model’s predictions, must be
very compelling for EPA to approve
these attainment demonstrations.
b. State’s Weight of Evidence Argument
and EPA’s Evaluation
The photochemical modeling results,
used in accordance with EPA’s
guidelines, predict that New Jersey’s
nonattainment areas will not attain by a
wide margin by the 2009 ozone season.
New Jersey’s SIP submittal uses
alternatives to the EPA guideline
methods to adjust for perceived flaws in
the photochemical grid model and
estimate the ozone reductions that may
be produced by additional measures not
included in the model. New Jersey
supports their alternatives using data
and scientific research to make the case
that its nonattainment areas could attain
the ozone standard by the 2009 ozone
season.
EPA has carefully reviewed New
Jersey’s attainment demonstration
21581
including these supplementary data and
research studies. EPA attempted to
determine if the additional information
provided by New Jersey is an acceptable
supplement to the photochemical grid
modeling and can be approved by EPA
to meet the Clean Air Act requirement
as ‘‘* * * any other analytical method
determined * * * to be at least as
effective’’ to supplement the
photochemical grid modeling (40 CFR
51.908). EPA has evaluated the
information provided by the State and
other information relevant to whether or
not New Jersey’s ozone nonattainment
areas will attain the ozone standard by
2009 and concludes that this
information does not demonstrate that
New Jersey will attain the ozone
standard by 2009. We discuss the details
of New Jersey’s analyses and EPA’s
conclusions in the sections that follow.
New Jersey’s weight of evidence
assessment considers two approaches to
‘‘adjust’’ the photochemical model
predictions in 2009. One approach
predicts that neither of the two
nonattainment areas in which New
Jersey is located will attain the standard
in 2009 based on modeling alone. The
second approach predicts the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area could
attain the standard in 2009 based on
adjusted photochemical modeling
predictions. New Jersey’s SIP submittal,
Table ES.1 (summarized in Table 2),
provides the results of New Jersey’s
analyses of attainment of the ozone
standard. The submittal summarizes
New Jersey’s attainment demonstration
in these words: ‘‘Table ES.1 presents the
results for the two controlling monitors
in the multi-state nonattainment areas
associated with New Jersey. The results
indicated that it is plausible for both
areas to reach attainment by June 15,
2010.’’ EPA draws attention to this
statement since New Jersey’s technical
analysis does not assert that attainment
is likely or that attainment is certain
within some set of parameters.
TABLE 2—2009 OZONE DESIGN VALUES PREDICTED IN THE NEW JERSEY SIP
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Site name, county and state
Photochemical grid
modeling result
Alternative baseline
and maximum
reduction
(approach 1)
Adjusted for
transport
(approach 2)
Effect of emissions
quantified but not
modeled 1
Estimated effect of
emissions not
quantified 2
Stratford, Fairfield Co., CT 3 ...........
Colliers Mills, Ocean Co., NJ 4 .......
90 ppb ...................
92 ppb ...................
83 ppb ...................
86 ppb ...................
85 ppb ...................
85 ppb ...................
¥0.2 to ¥2 ppb ...
¥0.3 to ¥4 ppb ...
¥1 to ¥3 ppb.
¥1 to ¥3 ppb.
Note: Attainment of the ozone standard is 84 ppb or less.
2 This action refers to the modeling predicting
ozone in 2009 as a surrogate for attaining with the
three-year design value, and is not a literal
prediction for the 2009 ozone season. Since the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:31 May 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
attainment date is June 2010 for New Jersey’s areas,
these areas must achieve emission reductions by the
beginning of the ozone season of 2009 in order for
ozone concentrations to be reduced, and meet the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
level of the standard, during the last complete
ozone season before the 2010 deadline. (See 40 CFR
51.908(d).)
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
21582
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules
1 From
New Jersey SIP submittal, Table 5.11 and Section 5.4.4.4.
New Jersey SIP submittal, Section 5.4.5.
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area.
4 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD nonattainment area.
2 From
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
3 New
In the case of the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DEMD and New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment areas, represented in
Table 2 by the Colliers Mills and
Stratford monitoring sites, respectively,
New Jersey notes that attainment is
‘‘plausible’’ if the modeled results are
adjusted and if New Jersey accounts for
the effects of implementing additional
measures not considered in the
photochemical modeling. While New
Jersey’s SIP submittal states it expects to
implement these additional measures,
New Jersey notes that they are not part
of New Jersey’s attainment
demonstration SIP.
As noted previously, the second
approach to adjusting the
photochemical modeling predictions,
which relies on adjustments to the base
line data and amount of reduction
predicted by the modeling, predicts
2009 concentrations to be less than the
85 ppb ozone standard only in the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT New York City ozone
nonattainment area. See the results for
the Stratford, CT receptor in Table 2.
For the Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD area,
neither approach to adjusting the
photochemical modeling demonstrates
attainment. See the results for the
Colliers Mills, NJ receptor in Table 2.
New Jersey relies on additional
emission control measures to argue that
the NAAQS will be attained in 2009 in
both of its nonattainment areas. New
Jersey estimates these additional
measures could reduce concentrations
by anywhere from 1 ppb to 5 ppb at
Colliers Mills and from less than 1 ppb
to 2 ppb at Stratford. EPA’s evaluation
of these additional measures is
discussed later in this action.
New Jersey’s attainment
demonstration relies on all of the
following to demonstrate attainment by
2009 in both of its nonattainment areas:
(1) New Jersey uses an alternative to
the modeling guidance method that
provides a 2002 starting point closer to
attainment and a larger ozone reduction
than the modeling average,
(2) New Jersey includes specified
attainment measures which are not yet
implemented, but committed to in its
SIP submittal, and
(3) New Jersey relies on the benefits
from additional measures without
specifically including them in the
attainment demonstration.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:31 May 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
Even if these adjustments and
assumptions are acceptable, the
additional measures not included in the
modeling show attainment only with
the upper limit of the estimated
benefits.
The next step is to evaluate each of
these assumptions in New Jersey’s SIP
submittal to determine if they help
demonstrate that attainment by 2009 is
likely.
Table 2 includes the 2009 predicted
ozone concentrations from the
photochemical grid modeling. Applying
the methods recommended in EPA’s
modeling guideline to the output from
the photochemical grid model results in
predictions of ozone in 2009 to be 92
ppb for the Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and 90 ppb
for the New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT areas. The
modeled concentrations in 2009 are
significantly above the 84 ppb
concentration used as the benchmark for
attaining the ozone air quality standard.
As previously noted, EPA does not rule
out the use of alternative methods even
when the photochemical grid modeling
results demonstrate the areas are far
from attaining the standard, but EPA’s
modeling guidance notes that more
qualitative results are less likely to
support a conclusion differing from the
outcome of the modeled attainment test.
The guidance notes that, in most cases,
considerable amounts of precursor
control (e.g., 20–25 percent or more)
would be needed to lower projected
ozone design values even by 3 ppb.
• New Jersey’s Adjustments to Modeled
Results—Overview
New Jersey used several different
methods to calculate the ozone for the
attainment year, based on 2009’s
emissions—methods that differed from
EPA’s modeling guidance. In the first
approach, New Jersey used alternative
methods of calculating the base starting
point design value and the amount of
reduction predicted by the model.
Combined, these two adjustments
predict an attainment year ozone
concentration of 86 ppb in the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-DE-MD nonattainment area and
83 ppb in the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area, therefore attaining
the standard only in the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island, NYNJ-CT nonattainment area.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The second approach used the results
of scientific research to adjust the ozone
concentration predicted by
photochemical grid modeling. This
approach predicts attainment year
ozone concentrations of 85 ppb in both
the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island, NYNJ-CT nonattainment areas. Using this
approach, attainment is not reached
without additional measures in either of
New Jersey’s nonattainment areas.
• New Jersey’s Adjustments to Modeled
Results—First Approach, Part 1
One of New Jersey’s methods for
adjusting the modeled results uses
alternative ways of calculating the base
air quality value for 2002. New Jersey’s
SIP submittal uses a straight five-year
average of the fourth-highest design
value from 2000 to 2004. EPA’s
modeling guidance recommends using
an average of the three years of design
value centered on 2002, which creates a
weighted five-year average. While New
Jersey’s SIP submittal notes that EPA’s
method of providing a weighted average
baseline value weights the base year of
2002 more heavily than other years,
EPA intended this, so that the resulting
value was influenced the most by the
ozone data from the base year of the
emission inventory. There are other
ways of calculating a baseline value that
the State did not use. For example, for
the peak ozone site of the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DEMD nonattainment area at Colliers
Mills:
The EPA guideline method baseline is
105.7 ppb 3;
the New Jersey alternative baseline is
104 ppb;
the 2002 design value is 112 ppb; and
the 2003 designation design value,
centered on 2002, is 106 ppb.
Various methods could result in
2002’s base year ozone of two ppb lower
than the modeling guidance method
(New Jersey’s five year average centered
on 2002) or as much as 7 ppb higher
than the guidance method (single design
value from 2002). New Jersey relies on
the lower end of the range of possible
results, and this brings the modeling
result closer to attainment. In addition,
3 The 2002 base air quality value for the modeling
base year is 106 ppb in New Jersey’s SIP submittal.
EPA’s guideline method results in a value of 105.7
ppb.
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
the straight five-year average method
used by New Jersey, while centered on
2002, is skewed by giving 2004 as much
influence as other years. The ozone data
from 2004 includes the effects of
reductions made between the base year
2002 and the attainment year of 2009,
when major reduction in nitrogen
oxides (NOX) occurred and are
accounted for in the photochemical grid
modeling. Specifically, EPA’s NOX SIP
Call and NOX Budget Trading Program
produced significant reductions before
the 2004 ozone season. The summer of
2004 was also a cooler than normal
summer, possibly biasing the base value
further downward toward attainment. In
an unweighted five-year average, 2004
has as much influence on the result as
each of the other four years, so it
provides a significant bias toward
attainment. Selecting only a method that
is lower than the recommended method
is not a balanced use of the weight of
evidence analysis. In this case, there are
equally plausible alternatives that
produce higher values. EPA does not
find New Jersey’s selected method of
adjusting the base design value to be
sufficiently justified and cannot accept
it as a supplemental method of
demonstrating attainment.
• New Jersey’s Adjustments to Modeled
Results—First Approach, Part 2
In order to predict an ozone design
value for the attainment year, 2009, it is
important to know how much ozone
will decrease from the base year to the
attainment year. The modeling predicts
ozone in 2002 and 2009 using each
year’s emissions and taking the
difference between them. EPA’s
modeling guidance suggests using the
average percent change in ozone at grid
cells around a monitoring site.
For the Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD
nonattainment area the percent
reduction in ozone between 2002 and
2009 was 9.5 percent at the peak
monitor and varied across monitoring
sites from 6.1 percent to 12.2 percent.
New Jersey’s SIP submittal uses the
greatest reduction from all of the
monitoring sites instead of using the
site-specific value for each of the
monitoring sites. Using the largest
reduction from any site in the entire
area may not be any more correct than
using the least reduction from any site
in the entire area. New Jersey’s
alternative method is not acceptable in
the weight of evidence analysis because
other methods can produce equally
plausible changes in ozone that result in
higher 2009 predicted ozone
concentrations than New Jersey’s
alternative method. EPA does not find
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:31 May 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
New Jersey’s selection of this
adjustment sufficiently justified and
cannot accept it as a supplemental
method of demonstrating attainment.
• New Jersey’s Adjustments to Modeled
Results—Second Approach—The
Sensitivity of the Photochemical Grid
Model to Changes in Emissions That
Cause Ozone
New Jersey’s SIP submittal includes
analyses as to whether the
photochemical grid model provides for
too little ozone reduction for the
emissions reductions used in the
photochemical grid modeling
(particularly long-range transport of
ozone and ozone-forming chemical
compounds). New Jersey makes the case
that, if the model does not properly
account for transport, future ozone
would be lower than predicted by the
photochemical grid model. Therefore,
New Jersey proposes adjusting the
modeling results downward by 5 ppb to
7 ppb. Thus, New Jersey projects 2009
ozone of 85 ppb in both the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-DE-MD and New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment areas.
New Jersey’s analysis relies on other
studies that suggest the model
underpredicts ozone transported aloft
and which, if corrected, would result in
lower predictions in the future. For
example, New Jersey cites ambient data
from sites that are strongly affected by
transported ozone to support the
proposition that the model may have a
slight bias toward overprediction of the
2009 attainment year ozone. Some
aircraft vertical soundings from 2002
show that modeled ozone is less than
predicted by the model. This is
important in the photochemical grid
model since ozone is transported aloft
from areas with high emissions of
ozone-forming compounds—areas
where large reductions in emissions are
expected due to EPA’s NOX SIP Call and
NOX Budget Trading Program. New
Jersey is concerned that the change in
ozone from these areas may also be
underpredicted. However, the same
document also notes that ozone formed
along the surface from local sources may
be underestimated. EPA is concerned
that New Jersey’s SIP does not
adequately allow for the possibility that
the model is giving too much credit to
these surface layer ozone reductions,
which should be accounted for in New
Jersey’s submittal, if it desires to adjust
the modeling results for a possible lack
of credit from distant emission sources.
New Jersey’s SIP submittal cites
research on ozone concentrations during
an electrical blackout in the recent past
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21583
that suggests the model underpredicts
the amount of ozone reduction that
actually occurred during the electrical
blackout. During the blackout, measured
ozone in rural areas west of New Jersey
was lower because some power plants
and some other major sources of ozoneforming compounds were shut down. A
study cited by New Jersey used a
photochemical grid model to estimate
the effect of the blackout by calculating
the change in ozone with and without
the sources that were shutdown during
the blackout. Another study compared
ozone on the blackout day with a past
high ozone day with more typical
emissions but with similar weather and
wind patterns to the blackout day. New
Jersey’s concern was that the modeled
change was less than the change in
ozone between the more typical day and
the blackout day. New Jersey concludes
from this that the model is not
responsive enough to reductions in
transported emissions. However, no two
days are the same and comparing two
particular ozone episodes is never exact.
The emissions of precursors that
produce ozone and the meteorological
patterns on the day of and the days
preceding the blackout will never occur
the same way twice. Another study that
EPA finds persuasive shows that the
‘‘typical’’ day had winds coming from
areas that were not the ones most
affected by the blackout. So, EPA
believes the comparison of the typical
and blackout days is not convincing
because the blackout and typical days
have ozone precursors arriving from
different areas. Also, these studies cited
by New Jersey did not look at the effect
of the blackout on air quality in the
urban nonattainment areas like those in
New Jersey. EPA concludes that while
the blackout study provides some
information as to the effectiveness of
reducing emissions on ozone air quality,
the blackout day and the more typical
day used for comparison have ozone
precursors from different areas and does
not demonstrate that the model is not
responsive enough to changes in ozone
precursor emissions.
After careful review of these studies,
EPA has found significant uncertainties
in the SIP submittal’s technical analysis
and therefore does not accept New
Jersey’s conclusion that the modeling
system underpredicts changes in ozone
as emissions change. Arguments in New
Jersey’s SIP submittal that the model
may not give full credit for emission
reductions are supported by limited
modeling work. The states have not
tested their hypothesis with their own
modeling. There are other studies and
ambient data that suggest contradictory
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
21584
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules
conclusions. EPA believes any
additional ozone reductions beyond the
photochemical modeling are likely to be
far less than the 5 to 7 ppb claimed in
the New Jersey SIP submittal. Therefore,
EPA concludes that New Jersey’s
adjustments to the photochemical grid
modeling results are not supported by
the information provided.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
• New Jersey’s Adjustments to Modeled
Results—Evidence of Improvement
Based on Air Quality Through 2006
New Jersey points out that measured
design values in the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DEMD and New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT areas in
2006 were close to the concentrations
predicted by the photochemical grid
model for 2009. With the passage of
time since New Jersey submitted its SIP
revision, EPA can use more recent air
quality data to evaluate New Jersey’s
comparison of the modeled results to
actual air quality. These more recent
measurements, data from 2007 and
preliminary air quality data from 2008,
are significantly higher than the ozone
standards. For example, when measured
air quality data for 2007 are included,
the design value remains the same or
increases in New Jersey’s ozone
nonattainment areas. Ozone design
values appear to be moving more slowly
toward attainment from 2006 to 2008
because the design values in 2006 were
biased low by the cooler-than-normal
summer of 2004 and more recent design
values are more indicative of typical air
quality in New Jersey’s nonattainment
areas.
The observed 2007 design values are
well above the values predicted by the
photochemical grid modeling (using the
EPA guideline methodology). These
data contradict the argument that the
modeling system is overpredicting
ozone in the attainment year. Note that
EPA is relying on air quality data only
as a supporting argument for EPA’s
determination, discussed earlier, that
New Jersey’s nonattainment areas will
not attain the ozone standard by the
2009 ozone season. Later in this action,
EPA reviews the effect of more recent
measured ozone data on the proposition
that emission reductions expected in
2008 and 2009 will be enough to reduce
ozone to attainment levels by 2009.
• Accounting for Additional Emission
Reduction Measures Not in Modeled
Results
New Jersey’s weight of evidence
analysis also attempts to quantify some
emission reductions not included in the
modeling. There are two kinds of
additional reductions that were not
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:31 May 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
included in the photochemical grid
modeling: reductions that New Jersey
can quantify and other reductions that
are harder to quantify. The most
effective way to predict changes in
ozone is through air quality modeling;
however, New Jersey did not perform
additional modeling runs including
these additional measures. The New
Jersey weight of evidence analysis
includes an attempt to project the effect
of these measures. For the additional
emission reductions New Jersey
describes as ‘‘quantifiable,’’ New Jersey
extrapolates data from modeling
discussed in its SIP submittal. For the
additional emission reductions New
Jersey describes as ‘‘unquantifiable,’’
New Jersey uses previously modeled
sensitivity studies of mobile source
controls to estimate the impact of these
unquantified emission reductions on air
quality. Numerically, for the
quantifiable measures, New Jersey uses
extrapolation of the photochemical
modeling results to predict that
additional measures will reduce ozone
by 0.3 to 4 ppb in the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DEMD area and 0.2 to 2 ppb in the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT area.
New Jersey’s SIP submission indicates
if the projected impact of these two sets
of measures is combined and their peak
effects occurred at the peak monitoring
location, these additional measures
could reduce 2009 ozone by 1 to 7 ppb
for the Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD area and 1
to 5 ppb for the New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT area.
The photochemical grid modeling
predicted modeled air quality for 2009
to be above the standard by 8 ppb in
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-DE-MD and above the standard
by 6 ppb in New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT. Even
assuming these additional measures
produced the largest amount of benefits
estimated by New Jersey (which we
believe would not be the appropriate
level to consider) New Jersey’s
nonattainment areas are predicted not to
attain the standard.
For measures New Jersey classifies as
‘‘non-quantifiable,’’ its SIP submittal
notes that when the State of Maryland
modeled reduced auto emissions from
decreased auto use due to telecommute
programs, reductions similar to those
measures proposed by New Jersey as
unquantifiable, modeled ozone
decreased by 1 to 3 ppb. EPA notes that
Maryland modeled a forty percent
reduction in mobile source emissions
for the State’s telecommute strategy.
Maryland modeled the emission
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reductions that would occur if forty
percent of all drivers decided not to
drive to work on high ozone days; the
model predicted ozone would be
reduced by 1 to 3 ppb.
The additional strategies proposed by
New Jersey, both the quantifiable and
the unquantifiable are not large enough
to reduce emissions by the equivalent of
a forty percent reduction in motor
vehicle use. Consequently, there is no
supporting information that New
Jersey’s additional measures will reduce
ozone by more than a few parts per
billion (and more likely, less), and
certainly not by the 5 ppb to 7 ppb
suggested by adding together the upper
end of the estimates provided in New
Jersey’s SIP submittal.
New Jersey’s attainment
demonstration predicts attainment only
if EPA accepts the upper range of these
emission reductions not included in the
modeling, plus adjustments to the
model results. EPA does not find
sufficient support for either of these
alternative analyses.
While New Jersey has committed to
adopt these additional measures (see
page 5–47 of the New Jersey SIP
submittal, Table 5.11 ‘‘Additional
Quantifiable Measures Not Included in
the 2009 BOTW Modeling), New Jersey
has specifically not included these
measures as part of its attainment
demonstration. Additionally, some of
these measures are being used to meet
the contingency requirement should a
nonattainment area not attain by its
attainment date. The State cannot rely
on the measures both for purposes of its
attainment demonstration and for
contingency measures as contingency
measures must be measures in addition
to those relied on to demonstrate
attainment. Furthermore, in order for a
control measure’s benefit to be
creditable towards attainment, the
measures must be enforceable by the
state and EPA and included in the
federally enforceable SIP. EPA allows
for a limited exception for voluntary
measures, but New Jersey’s additional
measures, even if they were included as
part of New Jersey’s attainment
demonstration, exceed the level of
reductions that EPA would consider for
voluntary measures. Therefore, these
measures cannot be relied upon to
make-up the difference between the
modeling projection and attainment.
• EPA’s Analysis of the Impact of the
Most Recent Air Quality Data on
Assertions of Attainment by 2009
New Jersey did not have the 2007 air
quality data when it submitted its ozone
attainment SIP revision. The 2006
design value (based on 2004–2006 data)
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
included air quality data from the cool
summer of 2004 that had sharply lower
levels of ozone. Ozone data from 2007
appears to be more in line with recent
ozone seasons and not like the lower
ozone concentrations recorded during
the cooler summer of 2004. While ozone
concentrations have decreased
substantially since 2002 even when the
2004 data are excluded, the use of data
including the summer of 2004 leads to
an overly optimistic assessment of the
2004 to 2006 ozone concentrations used
in New Jersey’s evaluation of the trend
toward attainment.
EPA is concerned that the additional
measures included in New Jersey’s SIP
submittal (but not relied on as part of
the attainment demonstration by New
Jersey) and other measures implemented
between now and the 2009 ozone season
will not be enough to reduce ozone from
its 2007 levels of 93 ppb in both of New
Jersey’s nonattainment areas to the 84
ppb ozone standard in 2009. Ozone
levels have decreased in the past five
years, but would need to decrease
another fifty percent or more over the
2007 and 2008 ozone seasons to reach
attainment in 2009.
EPA estimates that the programs New
Jersey says it will implement between
2007 and 2009 could reduce emissions
by an additional 7 to 10 percent of
nitrogen oxides and 6 to 7 percent of
volatile organic compound emissions.
This is less than half of the reductions
that occurred between 2002 and 2007.
Also, improvements in ozone air quality
in the past five years were also assisted
by reduced regional emissions from
EPA’s NOX SIP Call and NOX Budget
Trading Program as well as local
emission reductions in the northeast
corridor. These measures produced a
significant decrease in ozone. However,
the reductions from the NOX SIP Call
and NOX Budget Trading Program are
completed, so further reductions in
transported ozone are likely to be
minimal. This is confirmed by data in
EPA’s 2007 Air Quality Trends Report,
which shows little decrease in regional
reductions. Thus, it is not likely that
ozone will continue to decrease at the
rate observed from 2002 to 2007 unless
local emission reductions are expanded
to amounts well beyond those in the
present federally enforceable SIP.
The preliminary data from the 2008
ozone season 4 decreases EPA’s
4 Region
2 is using the preliminary data from the
Air Quality System or in some circumstances from
the EPA-State real-time data reporting system.
These data have not completed the states’ quality
assurance review. Certified 2008 ozone data were
not available from the states at the time of this
notice. EPA anticipates that the final data are not
likely to change by more than one or two ppb from
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:31 May 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
confidence that New Jersey’s
nonattainment areas will be able to
attain the ozone standard by 2009.
Including 2008’s preliminary data, the
design values become 92 ppb in the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-DE-MD area and 89 ppb in the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT area. EPA is not
encouraged that the additional measures
being implemented by the states will
bring ozone air quality to attainment by
2009.
Sections 172(a)(2)(C) and 181(a)(5) of
the Act provide for the opportunity of
up to two one-year extensions of the
attainment date of 2010. EPA can grant
an extension if all of the monitors in a
nonattainment area have a 4th highest
daily 8-hour average in 2009 of 84 ppb
or less and the State has complied with
all requirements and commitments
pertaining to the area in the applicable
implementation plan. The historical
ozone monitoring trends for New
Jersey’s ozone nonattainment areas,
supplemented with the preliminary
fourth-highest concentrations in 2008,
support the view that the area is
unlikely to attain the ozone standard or
even to have all monitors record a 4thhighest 8-hour ozone of 84 ppb or less
in 2009.
In summary, recent ambient data also
do not support the State’s contention
that the model is underpredicting ozone
for 2009, because if this was the case,
these areas would be closer to
attainment based on 2007 and 2008
data. Additionally, there does not
appear to be enough evidence that
additional emissions reductions over
the next year will achieve attainment or
be sufficient to meet the air quality
requirement for an attainment date
extension.
Even including the preliminary data
for 2008, air quality for the past few
years does not show lower ozone
concentrations consistent with
attainment by the 2009 ozone season.
These air quality data are similar to the
photochemical grid modeling results
obtained by following the methods in
EPA’s guidance, showing that
adjustments to the modeling results are
not needed. It is unlikely that New
Jersey’s nonattainment areas will attain
the ozone standard by the attainment
date.
c. Summary of Weight of Evidence
Discussion
With New Jersey’s photochemical grid
modeling results predicting a 2009
the preliminary data used in EPA’s assessment.
Changes of this amount would not change EPA’s
conclusions.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21585
projected design value well above the
air quality health standard for New
Jersey’s nonattainment areas, the State
has a heavy burden to provide a
demonstration that these areas will
attain the ozone standard by the
attainment date. New Jersey needed to
supply a substantial amount of evidence
that the model is seriously
overestimating future ozone
concentrations. Modeling and air
quality studies do not support an
argument that the model overpredicts
concentrations in 2009. Reductions
anticipated to take effect between now
and the beginning of the 2009 ozone
season are also not enough to close this
gap. New Jersey has suggested that it
can adopt additional emission reduction
strategies which will reduce ozone, but
these reductions are not yet in place or
are voluntary and mostly unquantifiable
emission control plans. They are not
likely to reduce ozone enough to reach
the standard by 2009, even if they are
implemented. EPA also cannot give
much credence to additional measures
that New Jersey says it will implement,
but will not officially include as part of
its attainment demonstration.
Ozone air quality concentrations
through 2007 are far above the level
needed for attainment and it is unlikely
that New Jersey and the other states
impacting these two nonattainment
areas will be able to implement enough
additional emission controls to reach
the standard by 2009. This is supported
by the lack of improvement shown in
the preliminary air quality data from
2008. Also, the present air quality data
does not support the hypothesis that the
models are incorrect. If New Jersey’s
hypothesis was correct, present air
quality concentrations would be closer
to the standard if New Jersey’s
nonattainment areas were going to reach
attainment in the upcoming 2009 ozone
season, when attainment is due.
The information and calculations
provided by New Jersey’s SIP
emphasizes methods or data that
support their claims that the
nonattainment areas could attain the
standard by the deadline. EPA’s review
of the ‘‘weight of evidence’’ analyses
must evaluate a spectrum of likely
alternative calculations, not only those
that tend to show the area will attain the
ozone standard. As noted before, the
method recommended by EPA’s
guidance and other reasonable
variations on EPA’s methods predict the
area will not attain the ozone standard
by 2009. New Jersey has provided
considerable information in support of
its ‘‘weight of evidence.’’ EPA has
determined this information does not
demonstrate that the proposed
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
21586
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
adjustments to the photochemical grid
model’s attainment year forecast will
give a more accurate answer than the
calculations based on EPA’s
recommendations in its modeling
guidance.
3. What Is EPA’s Evaluation?
The result of the photochemical grid
modeling analysis using EPA’s
recommended methods predicts that
New Jersey’s nonattainment areas will
not attain the standard by the
attainment year of 2009. In response to
this, New Jersey has offered a number of
alternative methods for using the
modeling information and additional
control strategies that when taken
together might plausibly demonstrate
attainment.
EPA has carefully evaluated the
information provided by New Jersey and
other information it deems relevant to
help predict whether ozone air quality
is likely to be in attainment of the ozone
standard after control measures are in
place by the 2009 ozone season. Taking
all this information together, EPA finds
the argument that attainment is likely in
2009 is unconvincing, and EPA does not
find the possibility that attainment is
plausible enough to satisfy the Clean Air
Act requirement that State
Implementation Plans provide for
attainment of the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date.
In general, EPA’s conclusions can be
summarized as follows:
• New Jersey’s modeling, using an
appropriate photochemical grid model
and EPA’s guidance methods, does not
predict attainment in 2009.
• New Jersey’s attainment
demonstration greatly relied on
adjustments to the baseline assumptions
which formed the basis of the
photochemical modeling analysis.
These adjustments to the base year
starting value and the amount of
reduction in ozone from 2002 to 2009
differ from EPA’s modeling guidance
and, more importantly, are not
sufficiently justified, and are biased
toward a conclusion that New Jersey’s
nonattainment areas will attain the
standard.
• New Jersey’s attainment
demonstration greatly relied on research
which evaluated the impact of a
widespread power blackout to develop
an alternative approach to estimating
anticipated air quality improvements
from upwind power plants. While EPA
believes that this approach provides
some insight into the transport of ozone
precursors, a critical review of all the
research available to EPA and New
Jersey leads EPA to disagree with the
premise that the air quality modeling
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:31 May 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
results should be adjusted using New
Jersey’s alternative approaches.
• New Jersey’s attainment
demonstration relies, in part, on
emission reductions resulting from a
commitment to adopt and implement a
number of regulations prior to the start
of the 2009 ozone season. Some of these
were included in the photochemical
grid modeling. These regulations would
provide for additional reductions from
boilers, refineries, power generation,
consumer products and portable fuel
containers. New Jersey’s SIP submittal
contains a schedule to adopt these
regulations by May of 2008. While New
Jersey has recently adopted two rule
packages, the third has yet to be
proposed. EPA must discount the effects
of these relied-upon emission
reductions since these emission
reductions may not be achieved by the
start of the 2009 ozone season.
• In order to insure attainment, New
Jersey refers to additional measures that
were not included in the original
photochemical modeling analysis. New
Jersey, however, has specifically not
included these measures as part of its
attainment demonstration. In order for a
control measure’s benefit to be
creditable towards attainment, the
measures must be enforceable by the
State and be included in the federally
enforceable SIP. As such, these
additional measures cannot be relied
upon to make-up the difference between
what the modeling projects and what is
needed for attainment.
• Some of New Jersey’s additional
measures can be quantified, others
cannot. While EPA encourages New
Jersey to continue to promote these
worthwhile and important emission
reduction programs, the amount of
tangible air quality benefit is difficult to
estimate with any degree of certainty.
Even if these measures were adopted
and implemented, the emissions
reductions are not sufficient to meet the
ozone standard in 2009 even by
selecting the most favorable
assumptions of the benefits associated
with these control measures.
• New Jersey used measured ozone
through 2006 to support its conclusion
that the photochemical grid modeling
was likely to be incorrect in its
prediction that New Jersey’s
nonattainment areas would be far from
attainment by 2009. However, when
comparing more recent data from 2007
and preliminary data from 2008 with
the results of the photochemical grid
modeling using EPA’s method, the
photochemical grid model does not
exhibit the magnitude of inaccuracies
suggested in New Jersey’s attainment
demonstration.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Regardless of the issues raised by
New Jersey regarding the performance of
EPA’s recommended air quality models,
the air quality measured during 2007
exceeded the ozone standard by a
significant margin. Even a linear
comparison of the percentage of
additional emission reductions planned
by the State with the needed
improvement in air quality between
2007 and 2009 indicates it is unlikely
that air quality will improve enough to
meet the ozone standard by 2009.
Preliminary air quality data from 2008
is sufficiently similar to 2007 air quality
data to indicate that attainment by 2009
is now even less likely.
• New Jersey, along with the other
states sharing its nonattainment areas,
did not take sufficient steps as required
by the section 182(j) of the Act to
coordinate with each other on the
implementation of SIP submittals
applicable to the nonattainment areas.
The SIPs submitted by each of the states
which share New Jersey’s
nonattainment areas differ significantly
in their level of emission controls, and,
to a lesser extent, modeling
demonstrations. In particular, for the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area,
the three states did not agree on the
basic issue of whether they will attain
the ozone standard by the attainment
date.
For these reasons, EPA proposes to
disapprove the attainment
demonstration portion of New Jersey’s
SIP submittal. The photochemical grid
modeling, performed according to EPA’s
guidelines, predicts New Jersey’s
nonattainment areas will fall short of
attaining the ozone standard by a
substantial margin. New Jersey provides
extensive information to argue that
attainment is plausible if the modeled
results are adjusted and if additional
measures (not included in the modeling
or the attainment demonstration) will be
in place and are effective. New Jersey’s
demonstration does not provide the
level of compelling evidence needed for
EPA to have confidence that New
Jersey’s nonattainment areas will
actually attain the NAAQS by the June
2010 deadline.
V. What Are the Consequences of a
Disapproved SIP?
This section explains the
consequences of a disapproval of a SIP
submittal under the Act. The Act
provides for the imposition of sanctions
and the promulgation of a federal
implementation plan (FIP) if a state fails
to submit a plan revision that corrects
the deficiencies identified by EPA in its
disapproval.
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules
A. What Are the Act’s Provisions for
Sanctions?
If EPA disapproves a required SIP or
component of a SIP, such as the
Attainment Demonstration SIP, section
179(a) provides for the imposition of
sanctions unless the deficiency is
corrected within 18 months of the final
rulemaking of disapproval. The first
sanction would apply 18 months after
EPA disapproves the SIP if a state fails
to make the required submittal which
EPA proposes to fully or conditionally
approve within that time. Under EPA’s
sanctions regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the
first sanction would be 2:1 offsets for
sources subject to the new source
review requirements under section 173
of the Act. If a state has still failed to
submit a SIP revision for which EPA
proposes full or conditional approval 6
months after the first sanction is
imposed, the second sanction will
apply. The second sanction is a
limitation on the receipt of Federal
highway funds. EPA also has authority
under section 110(m) to sanction a
broader area, but is not proposing to
take such action in today’s rulemaking.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
B. What Federal Implementation Plan
Provisions Apply if a State Fails To
Submit an Approvable Plan?
In addition to sanctions, if EPA finds
that a state failed to submit the required
SIP revision or disapproves the required
SIP revision, or a portion thereof, EPA
must promulgate a FIP no later than 2
years from the date of the finding if the
deficiency has not been corrected
within that time period.
C. What Are the Ramifications
Regarding Conformity?
One consequence of EPA’s
disapproval of a control strategy SIP is
a conformity freeze whereby affected
MPOs cannot make new conformity
determinations on long range
transportation plans and transportation
improvement programs (TIPs). If we
finalize the disapproval of the
attainment demonstration SIP, a
conformity freeze will be in place as of
the effective date of the disapproval
without a protective finding of the
budget. (40 CFR 93.120(a)(2)) This
means that no transportation plan, TIP,
or project not in the first four years of
the currently conforming transportation
plan and TIP or that meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 93.104(f) during
a 12-month lapse grace period 5 may be
found to conform until another
5 Additional information on the implementation
of the lapse grace period can be found in the final
transportation conformity rule published on
January 24, 2008. (73 FR 4423–4425)
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:31 May 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
attainment demonstration SIP is
submitted and the motor vehicle
emissions budgets are found adequate or
the attainment demonstration is
approved. In addition, if the highway
funding sanction is implemented, the
conformity status of the transportation
plan and TIP will lapse on the date of
implementation of the highway
sanctions. During a conformity lapse,
only projects that are exempt from
transportation conformity (e.g., road
resurfacing, safety projects,
reconstruction of bridges without
adding travel lanes, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, etc.), transportation
control measures that are in the
approved SIP and project phases that
were approved prior to the start of the
lapse can proceed during the lapse. No
new project-level approvals or
conformity determinations can be made
and no new transportation plan or TIP
may be found to conform until another
attainment demonstration SIP is
submitted and the motor vehicle
emissions budget is found adequate.
VI. What Are EPA’s Conclusions?
EPA is proposing to disapprove New
Jersey’s attainment demonstrations for
the New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT and the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-MD-DE 8-hour ozone moderate
nonattainment areas because New
Jersey’s demonstration does not provide
the level of compelling evidence for
EPA to have confidence that New
Jersey’s nonattainment areas will attain
the NAAQS by the June 2010 deadline.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore
not subject to review under the EO.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this
proposed SIP disapproval under section
110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself
create any new information collection
burdens but simply disapproves certain
State requirements for inclusion into the
SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to conduct
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21587
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and
small governmental jurisdictions. For
purposes of assessing the impacts of
today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not impose any
requirements or create impacts on small
entities. This proposed SIP disapproval
under section 110 and subchapter I, part
D of the Clean Air Act will not in-andof itself create any new requirements
but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP.
Accordingly, it affords no opportunity
for EPA to fashion for small entities less
burdensome compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables or
exemptions from all or part of the rule.
The fact that the Clean Air Act
prescribes that various consequences
(e.g., higher offset requirements) may or
will flow from this disapproval does not
mean that EPA either can or must
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis
for this action. Therefore, this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of this proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538 for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. EPA
has determined that the proposed
disapproval action does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more
to either State, local, or tribal
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
21588
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules
governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements
under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because it
merely disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP
and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing
to disapprove would not apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5–501 of
the EO has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
EO 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:31 May 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
action based on health or safety risks
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed
SIP disapproval under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act
will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion
into the SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No.
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
The EPA believes that VCS this action
is not subject to requirements of Section
12(d) of NTTAA because application of
those requirements would be
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
proposed action. In reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or
disapprove state choices, based on the
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to disapprove certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP
under section 110 and subchapter I, part
D of the Clean Air Act and will not inand-of itself create any new
requirements. Accordingly, it does not
provide EPA with the discretionary
authority to address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable
and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: April 28, 2009.
George Pavlou,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. E9–10663 Filed 5–7–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0929; FRL–8901–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Attainment Demonstration
for the Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City Moderate 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to
disapprove the ozone attainment
demonstration portion of a
comprehensive State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland to meet Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirements for attaining the 8hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for Cecil County,
which is the Maryland portion of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City
moderate nonattainment area
(Philadelphia Area). EPA is proposing to
disapprove Maryland’s attainment
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area
because EPA has determined that the
photochemical modeling does not
demonstrate attainment, and the weight
of evidence (WOE) analysis that
Maryland uses to support the attainment
demonstration does not provide the
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 88 (Friday, May 8, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21578-21588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10663]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0497, FRL-8901-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey
Ozone Attainment Demonstration
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action
on the ozone attainment demonstration portion of a comprehensive State
Implementation Plan revision submitted by New Jersey to meet Clean Air
Act requirements for attaining the 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard. EPA is proposing to disapprove New Jersey's
demonstration of attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R02-
OAR-2008-0497, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.
Fax: 212-637-3901
Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30 excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2008-
0497. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters or any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Kelly (kelly.bob@epa.gov) Air
Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
II. Background Information
A. History and Time Frame for the State's Attainment
Demonstration SIP
B. Moderate Area Requirements
C. Clean Air Act Requirement for Multi-State Ozone Nonattainment
Areas
III. What Was Included in New Jersey's SIP Submittals?
IV. EPA's Review and Technical Information
A. Attainment Demonstration
1. What Are the Components of a Modeled Attainment
Demonstration?
2. What Were the Results of the State's Weight of Evidence
Analysis?
a. EPA Requirements for the Weight of Evidence Analysis
b. State's Weight of Evidence Argument and EPA's Evaluation
c. Summary of Weight of Evidence Discussion
3. What Is EPA's Evaluation?
V. What Are the Consequences of a Disapproved SIP?
A. What Are the Act's Provisions for Sanctions?
B. What Federal Implementation Plan Provisions Apply if a State
Fails to Submit an Approvable Plan?
C. What Are the Ramifications Regarding Conformity?
VI. What Are EPA's Conclusions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Action is EPA Proposing?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed New Jersey's
comprehensive State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for attaining
the 0.08 ppm 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
or standard) \1\ in the State of New Jersey's moderate nonattainment
areas along with other related Clean Air Act (Act) requirements
necessary to insure attainment of the standard. The EPA is proposing to
disapprove New Jersey's 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration because
the EPA has determined that the photochemical modeling does not
demonstrate attainment and the weight of evidence analysis that New
Jersey uses to support the attainment demonstration does not provide
[[Page 21579]]
sufficient evidence to provide confidence that the two nonattainment
areas located in New Jersey will attain the NAAQS by the June 2010
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless otherwise specifically noted in the action,
references to the 8-hour ozone standard are to the 0.08 ppm ozone
standard promulgated in 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's analysis and findings are discussed in this proposed
rulemaking and a more detailed discussion is contained in the Technical
Support Document for this Proposal which is available on line at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0497.
II. Background Information
A. History and Time Frame for the State's Attainment Demonstration SIP
In 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it
at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA
set the 8-hour ozone standard based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone
concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when
the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was set. EPA determined that the
8-hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially
with regard to children and adults who are active outdoors, and
individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15,
2004. In addition, EPA promulgated its Phase 1 Rule for implementation
of the 8-hour standard, which provided how areas designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard would be classified (April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23951)). The entire state of New Jersey is classified
as being in nonattainment, divided between two 8-hour ozone moderate
nonattainment areas it shares with other states, the New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area, and the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area.
The New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area consists of the following New Jersey
counties: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth,
Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union and Warren. The New Jersey
portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE
nonattainment area consists of the following New Jersey counties:
Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer,
Ocean and Salem.
These designations triggered the Act's requirements under section
182(b) for moderate nonattainment areas, including a requirement to
submit an attainment demonstration. EPA's Phase 2 8-hour ozone
implementation rule, published on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612)
(Phase 2 Rule) specifies that states must submit attainment
demonstrations for their nonattainment areas to the EPA by no later
than three years from the effective date of designation, that is, by
June 15, 2007. 40 CFR 51.908(a)
B. Moderate Area Requirements
On November 29, 2005, EPA published the Phase 2 Implementation rule
which addresses the control obligations that apply to areas designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour NAAQS. Among other things, the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 Rules outline the SIP requirements and deadlines for various
requirements in areas designated as moderate nonattainment. For such
areas modeling and attainment demonstrations with projection year
emission inventories were due by June 15, 2007, along with reasonable
further progress plans, reasonably available control measures, motor
vehicle emissions budgets and contingency measures (40 CFR 51.908(a),
and (c) 59.910, 59.912). This action addresses New Jersey's
demonstration of attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard, which for
moderate areas is to be attained by the ozone season before the
attainment date of June 2010. In order to demonstrate attainment by
June 2010, the area must adopt and implement all controls necessary for
attainment by the beginning of the 2009 ozone season and demonstrate
that the level of the standard will be met during the 2009 ozone
season.
C. Clean Air Act Requirement for Multi-State Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Section 182(j) of the Clean Air Act requires each state within a
multi-state ozone nonattainment area to specifically use photochemical
grid modeling and take all reasonable steps to coordinate,
substantively and procedurally, the revisions and implementation of
State implementation plans applicable to the nonattainment area
concerned. Under this subsection of the Clean Air Act, EPA may not
approve any SIP revision for a State that fails to comply with these
requirements.
III. What Was Included in New Jersey's SIP Submittals?
After completing the appropriate public notice and comment
procedures, New Jersey made a submittal in order to address the Act's
8-hour ozone attainment requirements identified in Section II.A.2. On
October 29, 2007, New Jersey submitted a comprehensive 8-hour ozone SIP
for the New Jersey portions of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT and the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-
MD-DE nonattainment areas. It included attainment demonstrations,
reasonable further progress (RFP) plans for 2008 and 2009, reasonably
available control measures analyses for both areas, contingency
measures, on-road motor vehicle emission budgets, and general
conformity emission budgets for McGuire Air Force Base and Lakehurst
Naval Air Station. This SIP revision was subject to notice and comment
by the public and the State addressed the comments received on the
proposed SIPs before adopting the plans and submitting them for EPA
review and approval into the SIP.
Only the attainment demonstration is evaluated in this proposal.
EPA has evaluated and proposed action on the other portions of New
Jersey's SIP in a separate Federal Register action. See 74 FR 2945,
January 16, 2009.
IV. EPA's Review and Technical Information
A. Attainment Demonstration
1. What Are the Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration?
Section 110(a)(2)(k) of the Clean Air Act requires states to
prepare air quality modeling to demonstrate how they will meet ambient
air quality standards. EPA determined that states must use
photochemical grid modeling, or any other analytical method determined
by the Administrator to be at least as effective, to demonstrate
attainment of the ozone health-based standard in areas classified as
`moderate' or above, and to do so by the required attainment date. See
40 CFR 51.908(c). In 40 CFR 51.903, EPA specified how areas would be
classified with regard to the 8-hour ozone standard set by EPA in 1997.
EPA followed these procedures and classified the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment areas as moderate (69 FR
23858). Since the attainment date is June 2010 for moderate areas,
these areas must achieve emission reductions by the beginning of the
ozone season of 2009 in order for ozone concentrations to be reduced
and meet the level of the standard during the last complete ozone
season before the 2010 deadline. See 40 CFR 51.908(d).
[[Page 21580]]
EPA's photochemical modeling guidance is found at Guidance on the
Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA-454/B-07-002,
April 2007. The photochemical modeling guidance is divided into two
parts. One part describes how to use a photochemical grid model for
ozone to assess whether an area will come into attainment of the air
quality standard. A second part describes how the user should perform
supplemental analyses, using various analytical methods, to determine
if the model overpredicts, underpredicts, or accurately predicts the
air quality improvement projected to occur by the attainment date. The
guidance indicates that states should review these supplemental
analyses, in combination with the modeling analysis, in a ``weight of
evidence'' assessment to determine whether each area is likely to
achieve timely attainment.
New Jersey's SIP submittal (also referred to as the New Jersey SIP)
addresses each of the elements of a modeling attainment demonstration.
The submittal explains how on warm, sunny days, winds at the surface
and aloft move emissions from sources of ozone-forming chemicals within
and outside New Jersey to create high ozone concentrations in New
Jersey. In addition, it indicates that emissions from large combustion
sources are transported eastward by upper level winds to the east
coast, adding to the ozone formed locally.
The Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC's) Modeling Committee
developed a protocol for modeling the ozone problem in the northeastern
United States. The OTC Modeling Committee coordinated preparing and
running the photochemical grid model. It chose the Community Multi-
scale Air Quality Model (CMAQ) as the photochemical grid model of
choice. EPA concurs that this model is appropriate for modeling the
formation and distribution of ozone. The model domain covered almost
all of the eastern United States, with a high-resolution grid covering
the states in the northeast ozone transport region, including New
Jersey.
The OTC Modeling Committee used weather data for the entire 2002
ozone season in the CMAQ. 2002 was the base year for the attainment
plans and the year of the emission inventory used in the base year
modeling. Using a full ozone season covers many different weather
conditions when ozone episodes occur and exceeds EPA's recommendations
for episode selection. The OTC Modeling Committee used a Mesoscale
Meteorological model, version five (MM5), a weather forecast model
developed by Pennsylvania State University and the National Center for
Atmospheric Research for the weather conditions used by the
photochemical grid model. Details about how the states used the MM5
model are in Appendix D4 of New Jersey's SIP submittal.
States across the eastern United States provided emissions
information from their sources to be used in the model. The Mid
Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) collected and
quality assured the states' emissions data and processed these data for
the photochemical grid model to use. The states also included the
control measures that were already adopted as well as the control
measures that the state was committing to adopt from a list of ``Beyond
On the Way'' (BOTW) control measures. The lists of control measures
provided by the states to be included in the modeling are summarized in
Table 1. Emissions data for the model from outside the Northeast was
obtained from other regional planning organizations. States provided
projected emissions for 2009 that account for emission changes due to
regulations the states plan to implement by the beginning of the 2009
ozone season, as well as expected growth. The modeling uses these
emissions to calculate ozone concentrations for the attainment ozone
season of 2009.
Table 1--Ozone Transport Region-Wide Modeling Assumptions for the 2009 BOTW Model Run
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICI boilers--area sources ICI boilers--non-EGU point sources
Consumer PFC 2005/ Asphalt Adhesives ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cement Glass Asphalt
products 2009 paving & < 25 mmBtu/ 25-50 50-100 < 25 mmBtu/ 25-50 50-100 100-250 >250 mmBtu/ kilns furnaces plants
2005/2009 sealants hr mmBtu/hr mmBtu/hr hr mmBtu/hr mmBtu/hr mmBtu/hr hr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY NAA:
Connecticut............................................ X X X X X X X X X X X .......... ......... ......... X
New Jersey............................................. X X X X .......... X X X .......... .......... X .......... ......... ......... .........
New York............................................... X X X X X X X X X X X .......... X X X
Phila. NAA:
Delaware............................................... X X ......... X .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... X .......... ......... ......... .........
Maryland............................................... X X X X .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... X .......... X X .........
New Jersey............................................. X X X X .......... X X X .......... .......... X .......... ......... ......... .........
Pennsylvania........................................... X X ......... X .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... X .........
Other States:
Maine.................................................. X X ......... X .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... X ......... .........
New Hampshire.......................................... X X X ......... .......... .......... .......... .......... X X X .......... ......... ......... .........
Vermont................................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... ......... .........
Massachusetts.......................................... X ......... X X .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... X .........
Rhode Island........................................... X X X X .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... ......... .........
DC..................................................... X X X X .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... ......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Source: MACTEC. Development of Emission Projections for 2009, 2012, and 2018 for NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources in the MANE-VU Region, Final TSD. Prepared for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association by MACTEC
Federal Programs, Inc., February 28, 2007.
The states that share nonattainment areas with New Jersey have
chosen to adopt different sets of control strategies, as shown in Table
1. This Table does not include additional measures that New Jersey has
labeled as ``quantifiable additional measures'' and ``unquantifiable
additional measures.'' These additional measures, that New Jersey's SIP
submittal indicates are necessary to show attainment of the ozone
standard, were not included in the photochemical grid modeling. Some,
but not all, of New Jersey's neighboring states are planning to
implement these additional measures.
The performance of the CMAQ photochemical grid model in predicting
ozone, and the chemicals that form ozone, met EPA's guidelines for
model performance. The model outputs are generally consistent with the
day-to-day patterns of observed data, with low bias and error. The OTC
Modeling Committee noted that the modeling system tends to overpredict
low concentrations and slightly underpredict peak concentrations. EPA
concurs with New Jersey's assessment that the model was properly set
up, met all EPA performance requirements and was appropriate for use in
New Jersey's nonattainment areas.
For the attainment analysis, the states used the results from the
photochemical
[[Page 21581]]
grid model in a relative sense, as recommended by EPA's photochemical
modeling guidance, by calculating the difference between ozone
predicted by the photochemical grid model in 2002 and ozone predicted
using the emission controls New Jersey and other states planned to have
in place by 2009.\2\ To meet EPA's attainment test, when the difference
in ozone from 2002 to 2009 is applied to the baseline air quality data
centered in the base year of 2002, the resulting 2009 prediction must
be that ozone is less than 85 parts per billion (ppb) at all monitoring
stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This action refers to the modeling predicting ozone in 2009
as a surrogate for attaining with the three-year design value, and
is not a literal prediction for the 2009 ozone season. Since the
attainment date is June 2010 for New Jersey's areas, these areas
must achieve emission reductions by the beginning of the ozone
season of 2009 in order for ozone concentrations to be reduced, and
meet the level of the standard, during the last complete ozone
season before the 2010 deadline. (See 40 CFR 51.908(d).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the basic photochemical grid modeling used by New
Jersey in its SIP submittal meets EPA's guidelines and, when used with
the methods recommended in EPA's modeling guidance, is acceptable to
EPA. When New Jersey applies EPA's methods to its data, using the
photochemical grid model that includes the modeled emission reduction
strategies prepared by New Jersey and the OTC states, it predicts that
ozone levels in the attainment year would be 92 ppb in the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and 90 ppb in the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment
areas. Thus, the photochemical model predicts New Jersey will not reach
the 84 ppb concentration level that marks attainment of the ozone
standard by the 2009 ozone season.
2. What Were the Results of the State's Weight of Evidence Analysis?
a. EPA Requirements for the Weight of Evidence Analysis
EPA's photochemical modeling guidance strongly recommends states
complement the photochemical air quality modeling in situations where
modeling predicts the area to be close to (within several parts per
billion of) the ozone standard. While this is not the case in New
Jersey where photochemical modeling predicts levels significantly
greater than the ozone standard, New Jersey nevertheless chose to
perform additional analyses to determine if attainment could be
demonstrated. EPA can accept results of additional analyses to be used
in a weight of evidence determination to show that attainment is likely
in spite of photochemical modeling predictions to the contrary.
However, the greater the difference between the ozone standard and the
photochemical modeling predictions, the more compelling the additional
evidence produced by these additional analyses needs to be. EPA notes
in its guidance that if the concentration predicted by the
photochemical model is 88 ppb or higher, it is far less likely that the
more qualitative arguments made in a weight of evidence determination
can be sufficiently convincing to conclude that the ozone standard will
be attained. In New Jersey's case, the photochemical model predictions
of 92 ppb in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and
90 ppb in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone
nonattainment areas exceed 88 ppb. Thus the evidence needed to show
that these areas will actually attain the ozone standard, despite the
model's predictions, must be very compelling for EPA to approve these
attainment demonstrations.
b. State's Weight of Evidence Argument and EPA's Evaluation
The photochemical modeling results, used in accordance with EPA's
guidelines, predict that New Jersey's nonattainment areas will not
attain by a wide margin by the 2009 ozone season. New Jersey's SIP
submittal uses alternatives to the EPA guideline methods to adjust for
perceived flaws in the photochemical grid model and estimate the ozone
reductions that may be produced by additional measures not included in
the model. New Jersey supports their alternatives using data and
scientific research to make the case that its nonattainment areas could
attain the ozone standard by the 2009 ozone season.
EPA has carefully reviewed New Jersey's attainment demonstration
including these supplementary data and research studies. EPA attempted
to determine if the additional information provided by New Jersey is an
acceptable supplement to the photochemical grid modeling and can be
approved by EPA to meet the Clean Air Act requirement as ``* * * any
other analytical method determined * * * to be at least as effective''
to supplement the photochemical grid modeling (40 CFR 51.908). EPA has
evaluated the information provided by the State and other information
relevant to whether or not New Jersey's ozone nonattainment areas will
attain the ozone standard by 2009 and concludes that this information
does not demonstrate that New Jersey will attain the ozone standard by
2009. We discuss the details of New Jersey's analyses and EPA's
conclusions in the sections that follow.
New Jersey's weight of evidence assessment considers two approaches
to ``adjust'' the photochemical model predictions in 2009. One approach
predicts that neither of the two nonattainment areas in which New
Jersey is located will attain the standard in 2009 based on modeling
alone. The second approach predicts the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area could attain the standard in
2009 based on adjusted photochemical modeling predictions. New Jersey's
SIP submittal, Table ES.1 (summarized in Table 2), provides the results
of New Jersey's analyses of attainment of the ozone standard. The
submittal summarizes New Jersey's attainment demonstration in these
words: ``Table ES.1 presents the results for the two controlling
monitors in the multi-state nonattainment areas associated with New
Jersey. The results indicated that it is plausible for both areas to
reach attainment by June 15, 2010.'' EPA draws attention to this
statement since New Jersey's technical analysis does not assert that
attainment is likely or that attainment is certain within some set of
parameters.
Table 2--2009 Ozone Design Values Predicted in the New Jersey SIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative baseline and Effect of emissions
Site name, county and state Photochemical grid modeling maximum reduction (approach Adjusted for transport quantified but not modeled Estimated effect of emissions
result 1) (approach 2) \1\ not quantified \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stratford, Fairfield Co., CT \3\... 90 ppb........................ 83 ppb........................ 85 ppb....................... -0.2 to -2 ppb............... -1 to -3 ppb.
Colliers Mills, Ocean Co., NJ \4\.. 92 ppb........................ 86 ppb........................ 85 ppb....................... -0.3 to -4 ppb............... -1 to -3 ppb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Attainment of the ozone standard is 84 ppb or less.
[[Page 21582]]
\1\ From New Jersey SIP submittal, Table 5.11 and Section 5.4.4.4.
\2\ From New Jersey SIP submittal, Section 5.4.5.
\3\ New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area.
\4\ Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD nonattainment area.
In the case of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-
MD and New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment
areas, represented in Table 2 by the Colliers Mills and Stratford
monitoring sites, respectively, New Jersey notes that attainment is
``plausible'' if the modeled results are adjusted and if New Jersey
accounts for the effects of implementing additional measures not
considered in the photochemical modeling. While New Jersey's SIP
submittal states it expects to implement these additional measures, New
Jersey notes that they are not part of New Jersey's attainment
demonstration SIP.
As noted previously, the second approach to adjusting the
photochemical modeling predictions, which relies on adjustments to the
base line data and amount of reduction predicted by the modeling,
predicts 2009 concentrations to be less than the 85 ppb ozone standard
only in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT New York
City ozone nonattainment area. See the results for the Stratford, CT
receptor in Table 2. For the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-
NJ-DE-MD area, neither approach to adjusting the photochemical modeling
demonstrates attainment. See the results for the Colliers Mills, NJ
receptor in Table 2. New Jersey relies on additional emission control
measures to argue that the NAAQS will be attained in 2009 in both of
its nonattainment areas. New Jersey estimates these additional measures
could reduce concentrations by anywhere from 1 ppb to 5 ppb at Colliers
Mills and from less than 1 ppb to 2 ppb at Stratford. EPA's evaluation
of these additional measures is discussed later in this action.
New Jersey's attainment demonstration relies on all of the
following to demonstrate attainment by 2009 in both of its
nonattainment areas:
(1) New Jersey uses an alternative to the modeling guidance method
that provides a 2002 starting point closer to attainment and a larger
ozone reduction than the modeling average,
(2) New Jersey includes specified attainment measures which are not
yet implemented, but committed to in its SIP submittal, and
(3) New Jersey relies on the benefits from additional measures
without specifically including them in the attainment demonstration.
Even if these adjustments and assumptions are acceptable, the
additional measures not included in the modeling show attainment only
with the upper limit of the estimated benefits.
The next step is to evaluate each of these assumptions in New
Jersey's SIP submittal to determine if they help demonstrate that
attainment by 2009 is likely.
Table 2 includes the 2009 predicted ozone concentrations from the
photochemical grid modeling. Applying the methods recommended in EPA's
modeling guideline to the output from the photochemical grid model
results in predictions of ozone in 2009 to be 92 ppb for the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and 90 ppb for the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT areas. The modeled
concentrations in 2009 are significantly above the 84 ppb concentration
used as the benchmark for attaining the ozone air quality standard. As
previously noted, EPA does not rule out the use of alternative methods
even when the photochemical grid modeling results demonstrate the areas
are far from attaining the standard, but EPA's modeling guidance notes
that more qualitative results are less likely to support a conclusion
differing from the outcome of the modeled attainment test. The guidance
notes that, in most cases, considerable amounts of precursor control
(e.g., 20-25 percent or more) would be needed to lower projected ozone
design values even by 3 ppb.
New Jersey's Adjustments to Modeled Results--Overview
New Jersey used several different methods to calculate the ozone
for the attainment year, based on 2009's emissions--methods that
differed from EPA's modeling guidance. In the first approach, New
Jersey used alternative methods of calculating the base starting point
design value and the amount of reduction predicted by the model.
Combined, these two adjustments predict an attainment year ozone
concentration of 86 ppb in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-DE-MD nonattainment area and 83 ppb in the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area, therefore attaining
the standard only in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-
NJ-CT nonattainment area.
The second approach used the results of scientific research to
adjust the ozone concentration predicted by photochemical grid
modeling. This approach predicts attainment year ozone concentrations
of 85 ppb in both the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-
MD and the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment areas. Using this approach, attainment is not reached
without additional measures in either of New Jersey's nonattainment
areas.
New Jersey's Adjustments to Modeled Results--First Approach,
Part 1
One of New Jersey's methods for adjusting the modeled results uses
alternative ways of calculating the base air quality value for 2002.
New Jersey's SIP submittal uses a straight five-year average of the
fourth-highest design value from 2000 to 2004. EPA's modeling guidance
recommends using an average of the three years of design value centered
on 2002, which creates a weighted five-year average. While New Jersey's
SIP submittal notes that EPA's method of providing a weighted average
baseline value weights the base year of 2002 more heavily than other
years, EPA intended this, so that the resulting value was influenced
the most by the ozone data from the base year of the emission
inventory. There are other ways of calculating a baseline value that
the State did not use. For example, for the peak ozone site of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD nonattainment area
at Colliers Mills:
The EPA guideline method baseline is 105.7 ppb \3\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The 2002 base air quality value for the modeling base year
is 106 ppb in New Jersey's SIP submittal. EPA's guideline method
results in a value of 105.7 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the New Jersey alternative baseline is 104 ppb;
the 2002 design value is 112 ppb; and
the 2003 designation design value, centered on 2002, is 106 ppb.
Various methods could result in 2002's base year ozone of two ppb
lower than the modeling guidance method (New Jersey's five year average
centered on 2002) or as much as 7 ppb higher than the guidance method
(single design value from 2002). New Jersey relies on the lower end of
the range of possible results, and this brings the modeling result
closer to attainment. In addition,
[[Page 21583]]
the straight five-year average method used by New Jersey, while
centered on 2002, is skewed by giving 2004 as much influence as other
years. The ozone data from 2004 includes the effects of reductions made
between the base year 2002 and the attainment year of 2009, when major
reduction in nitrogen oxides (NOX) occurred and are
accounted for in the photochemical grid modeling. Specifically, EPA's
NOX SIP Call and NOX Budget Trading Program
produced significant reductions before the 2004 ozone season. The
summer of 2004 was also a cooler than normal summer, possibly biasing
the base value further downward toward attainment. In an unweighted
five-year average, 2004 has as much influence on the result as each of
the other four years, so it provides a significant bias toward
attainment. Selecting only a method that is lower than the recommended
method is not a balanced use of the weight of evidence analysis. In
this case, there are equally plausible alternatives that produce higher
values. EPA does not find New Jersey's selected method of adjusting the
base design value to be sufficiently justified and cannot accept it as
a supplemental method of demonstrating attainment.
New Jersey's Adjustments to Modeled Results--First Approach,
Part 2
In order to predict an ozone design value for the attainment year,
2009, it is important to know how much ozone will decrease from the
base year to the attainment year. The modeling predicts ozone in 2002
and 2009 using each year's emissions and taking the difference between
them. EPA's modeling guidance suggests using the average percent change
in ozone at grid cells around a monitoring site.
For the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD
nonattainment area the percent reduction in ozone between 2002 and 2009
was 9.5 percent at the peak monitor and varied across monitoring sites
from 6.1 percent to 12.2 percent. New Jersey's SIP submittal uses the
greatest reduction from all of the monitoring sites instead of using
the site-specific value for each of the monitoring sites. Using the
largest reduction from any site in the entire area may not be any more
correct than using the least reduction from any site in the entire
area. New Jersey's alternative method is not acceptable in the weight
of evidence analysis because other methods can produce equally
plausible changes in ozone that result in higher 2009 predicted ozone
concentrations than New Jersey's alternative method. EPA does not find
New Jersey's selection of this adjustment sufficiently justified and
cannot accept it as a supplemental method of demonstrating attainment.
New Jersey's Adjustments to Modeled Results--Second Approach--
The Sensitivity of the Photochemical Grid Model to Changes in Emissions
That Cause Ozone
New Jersey's SIP submittal includes analyses as to whether the
photochemical grid model provides for too little ozone reduction for
the emissions reductions used in the photochemical grid modeling
(particularly long-range transport of ozone and ozone-forming chemical
compounds). New Jersey makes the case that, if the model does not
properly account for transport, future ozone would be lower than
predicted by the photochemical grid model. Therefore, New Jersey
proposes adjusting the modeling results downward by 5 ppb to 7 ppb.
Thus, New Jersey projects 2009 ozone of 85 ppb in both the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment areas.
New Jersey's analysis relies on other studies that suggest the
model underpredicts ozone transported aloft and which, if corrected,
would result in lower predictions in the future. For example, New
Jersey cites ambient data from sites that are strongly affected by
transported ozone to support the proposition that the model may have a
slight bias toward overprediction of the 2009 attainment year ozone.
Some aircraft vertical soundings from 2002 show that modeled ozone is
less than predicted by the model. This is important in the
photochemical grid model since ozone is transported aloft from areas
with high emissions of ozone-forming compounds--areas where large
reductions in emissions are expected due to EPA's NOX SIP
Call and NOX Budget Trading Program. New Jersey is concerned
that the change in ozone from these areas may also be underpredicted.
However, the same document also notes that ozone formed along the
surface from local sources may be underestimated. EPA is concerned that
New Jersey's SIP does not adequately allow for the possibility that the
model is giving too much credit to these surface layer ozone
reductions, which should be accounted for in New Jersey's submittal, if
it desires to adjust the modeling results for a possible lack of credit
from distant emission sources.
New Jersey's SIP submittal cites research on ozone concentrations
during an electrical blackout in the recent past that suggests the
model underpredicts the amount of ozone reduction that actually
occurred during the electrical blackout. During the blackout, measured
ozone in rural areas west of New Jersey was lower because some power
plants and some other major sources of ozone-forming compounds were
shut down. A study cited by New Jersey used a photochemical grid model
to estimate the effect of the blackout by calculating the change in
ozone with and without the sources that were shutdown during the
blackout. Another study compared ozone on the blackout day with a past
high ozone day with more typical emissions but with similar weather and
wind patterns to the blackout day. New Jersey's concern was that the
modeled change was less than the change in ozone between the more
typical day and the blackout day. New Jersey concludes from this that
the model is not responsive enough to reductions in transported
emissions. However, no two days are the same and comparing two
particular ozone episodes is never exact. The emissions of precursors
that produce ozone and the meteorological patterns on the day of and
the days preceding the blackout will never occur the same way twice.
Another study that EPA finds persuasive shows that the ``typical'' day
had winds coming from areas that were not the ones most affected by the
blackout. So, EPA believes the comparison of the typical and blackout
days is not convincing because the blackout and typical days have ozone
precursors arriving from different areas. Also, these studies cited by
New Jersey did not look at the effect of the blackout on air quality in
the urban nonattainment areas like those in New Jersey. EPA concludes
that while the blackout study provides some information as to the
effectiveness of reducing emissions on ozone air quality, the blackout
day and the more typical day used for comparison have ozone precursors
from different areas and does not demonstrate that the model is not
responsive enough to changes in ozone precursor emissions.
After careful review of these studies, EPA has found significant
uncertainties in the SIP submittal's technical analysis and therefore
does not accept New Jersey's conclusion that the modeling system
underpredicts changes in ozone as emissions change. Arguments in New
Jersey's SIP submittal that the model may not give full credit for
emission reductions are supported by limited modeling work. The states
have not tested their hypothesis with their own modeling. There are
other studies and ambient data that suggest contradictory
[[Page 21584]]
conclusions. EPA believes any additional ozone reductions beyond the
photochemical modeling are likely to be far less than the 5 to 7 ppb
claimed in the New Jersey SIP submittal. Therefore, EPA concludes that
New Jersey's adjustments to the photochemical grid modeling results are
not supported by the information provided.
New Jersey's Adjustments to Modeled Results--Evidence of
Improvement Based on Air Quality Through 2006
New Jersey points out that measured design values in the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT areas in 2006 were close to
the concentrations predicted by the photochemical grid model for 2009.
With the passage of time since New Jersey submitted its SIP revision,
EPA can use more recent air quality data to evaluate New Jersey's
comparison of the modeled results to actual air quality. These more
recent measurements, data from 2007 and preliminary air quality data
from 2008, are significantly higher than the ozone standards. For
example, when measured air quality data for 2007 are included, the
design value remains the same or increases in New Jersey's ozone
nonattainment areas. Ozone design values appear to be moving more
slowly toward attainment from 2006 to 2008 because the design values in
2006 were biased low by the cooler-than-normal summer of 2004 and more
recent design values are more indicative of typical air quality in New
Jersey's nonattainment areas.
The observed 2007 design values are well above the values predicted
by the photochemical grid modeling (using the EPA guideline
methodology). These data contradict the argument that the modeling
system is overpredicting ozone in the attainment year. Note that EPA is
relying on air quality data only as a supporting argument for EPA's
determination, discussed earlier, that New Jersey's nonattainment areas
will not attain the ozone standard by the 2009 ozone season. Later in
this action, EPA reviews the effect of more recent measured ozone data
on the proposition that emission reductions expected in 2008 and 2009
will be enough to reduce ozone to attainment levels by 2009.
Accounting for Additional Emission Reduction Measures Not in
Modeled Results
New Jersey's weight of evidence analysis also attempts to quantify
some emission reductions not included in the modeling. There are two
kinds of additional reductions that were not included in the
photochemical grid modeling: reductions that New Jersey can quantify
and other reductions that are harder to quantify. The most effective
way to predict changes in ozone is through air quality modeling;
however, New Jersey did not perform additional modeling runs including
these additional measures. The New Jersey weight of evidence analysis
includes an attempt to project the effect of these measures. For the
additional emission reductions New Jersey describes as
``quantifiable,'' New Jersey extrapolates data from modeling discussed
in its SIP submittal. For the additional emission reductions New Jersey
describes as ``unquantifiable,'' New Jersey uses previously modeled
sensitivity studies of mobile source controls to estimate the impact of
these unquantified emission reductions on air quality. Numerically, for
the quantifiable measures, New Jersey uses extrapolation of the
photochemical modeling results to predict that additional measures will
reduce ozone by 0.3 to 4 ppb in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City, PA-NJ-DE-MD area and 0.2 to 2 ppb in the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT area.
New Jersey's SIP submission indicates if the projected impact of
these two sets of measures is combined and their peak effects occurred
at the peak monitoring location, these additional measures could reduce
2009 ozone by 1 to 7 ppb for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-DE-MD area and 1 to 5 ppb for the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, NY-NJ-CT area. The photochemical grid modeling predicted
modeled air quality for 2009 to be above the standard by 8 ppb in
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and above the
standard by 6 ppb in New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-
CT. Even assuming these additional measures produced the largest amount
of benefits estimated by New Jersey (which we believe would not be the
appropriate level to consider) New Jersey's nonattainment areas are
predicted not to attain the standard.
For measures New Jersey classifies as ``non-quantifiable,'' its SIP
submittal notes that when the State of Maryland modeled reduced auto
emissions from decreased auto use due to telecommute programs,
reductions similar to those measures proposed by New Jersey as
unquantifiable, modeled ozone decreased by 1 to 3 ppb. EPA notes that
Maryland modeled a forty percent reduction in mobile source emissions
for the State's telecommute strategy. Maryland modeled the emission
reductions that would occur if forty percent of all drivers decided not
to drive to work on high ozone days; the model predicted ozone would be
reduced by 1 to 3 ppb.
The additional strategies proposed by New Jersey, both the
quantifiable and the unquantifiable are not large enough to reduce
emissions by the equivalent of a forty percent reduction in motor
vehicle use. Consequently, there is no supporting information that New
Jersey's additional measures will reduce ozone by more than a few parts
per billion (and more likely, less), and certainly not by the 5 ppb to
7 ppb suggested by adding together the upper end of the estimates
provided in New Jersey's SIP submittal.
New Jersey's attainment demonstration predicts attainment only if
EPA accepts the upper range of these emission reductions not included
in the modeling, plus adjustments to the model results. EPA does not
find sufficient support for either of these alternative analyses.
While New Jersey has committed to adopt these additional measures
(see page 5-47 of the New Jersey SIP submittal, Table 5.11 ``Additional
Quantifiable Measures Not Included in the 2009 BOTW Modeling), New
Jersey has specifically not included these measures as part of its
attainment demonstration. Additionally, some of these measures are
being used to meet the contingency requirement should a nonattainment
area not attain by its attainment date. The State cannot rely on the
measures both for purposes of its attainment demonstration and for
contingency measures as contingency measures must be measures in
addition to those relied on to demonstrate attainment. Furthermore, in
order for a control measure's benefit to be creditable towards
attainment, the measures must be enforceable by the state and EPA and
included in the federally enforceable SIP. EPA allows for a limited
exception for voluntary measures, but New Jersey's additional measures,
even if they were included as part of New Jersey's attainment
demonstration, exceed the level of reductions that EPA would consider
for voluntary measures. Therefore, these measures cannot be relied upon
to make-up the difference between the modeling projection and
attainment.
EPA's Analysis of the Impact of the Most Recent Air Quality
Data on Assertions of Attainment by 2009
New Jersey did not have the 2007 air quality data when it submitted
its ozone attainment SIP revision. The 2006 design value (based on
2004-2006 data)
[[Page 21585]]
included air quality data from the cool summer of 2004 that had sharply
lower levels of ozone. Ozone data from 2007 appears to be more in line
with recent ozone seasons and not like the lower ozone concentrations
recorded during the cooler summer of 2004. While ozone concentrations
have decreased substantially since 2002 even when the 2004 data are
excluded, the use of data including the summer of 2004 leads to an
overly optimistic assessment of the 2004 to 2006 ozone concentrations
used in New Jersey's evaluation of the trend toward attainment.
EPA is concerned that the additional measures included in New
Jersey's SIP submittal (but not relied on as part of the attainment
demonstration by New Jersey) and other measures implemented between now
and the 2009 ozone season will not be enough to reduce ozone from its
2007 levels of 93 ppb in both of New Jersey's nonattainment areas to
the 84 ppb ozone standard in 2009. Ozone levels have decreased in the
past five years, but would need to decrease another fifty percent or
more over the 2007 and 2008 ozone seasons to reach attainment in 2009.
EPA estimates that the programs New Jersey says it will implement
between 2007 and 2009 could reduce emissions by an additional 7 to 10
percent of nitrogen oxides and 6 to 7 percent of volatile organic
compound emissions. This is less than half of the reductions that
occurred between 2002 and 2007. Also, improvements in ozone air quality
in the past five years were also assisted by reduced regional emissions
from EPA's NOX SIP Call and NOX Budget Trading Program as well as local
emission reductions in the northeast corridor. These measures produced
a significant decrease in ozone. However, the reductions from the NOX
SIP Call and NOX Budget Trading Program are completed, so further
reductions in transported ozone are likely to be minimal. This is
confirmed by data in EPA's 2007 Air Quality Trends Report, which shows
little decrease in regional reductions. Thus, it is not likely that
ozone will continue to decrease at the rate observed from 2002 to 2007
unless local emission reductions are expanded to amounts well beyond
those in the present federally enforceable SIP.
The preliminary data from the 2008 ozone season \4\ decreases EPA's
confidence that New Jersey's nonattainment areas will be able to attain
the ozone standard by 2009. Including 2008's preliminary data, the
design values become 92 ppb in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City, PA-NJ-DE-MD area and 89 ppb in the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, NY-NJ-CT area. EPA is not encouraged that the additional
measures being implemented by the states will bring ozone air quality
to attainment by 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Region 2 is using the preliminary data from the Air Quality
System or in some circumstances from the EPA-State real-time data
reporting system. These data have not completed the states' quality
assurance review. Certified 2008 ozone data were not available from
the states at the time of this notice. EPA anticipates that the
final data are not likely to change by more than one or two ppb from
the preliminary data used in EPA's assessment. Changes of this
amount would not change EPA's conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 172(a)(2)(C) and 181(a)(5) of the Act provide for the
opportunity of up to two one-year extensions of the attainment date of
2010. EPA can grant an extension if all of the monitors in a
nonattainment area have a 4th highest daily 8-hour average in 2009 of
84 ppb or less and the State has complied with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation
plan. The historical ozone monitoring trends for New Jersey's ozone
nonattainment areas, supplemented with the preliminary fourth-highest
concentrations in 2008, support the view that the area is unlikely to
attain the ozone standard or even to have all monitors record a 4th-
highest 8-hour ozone of 84 ppb or less in 2009.
In summary, recent ambient data also do not support the State's
contention that the model is underpredicting ozone for 2009, because if
this was the case, these areas would be closer to attainment based on
2007 and 2008 data. Additionally, there does not appear to be enough
evidence that additional emissions reductions over the next year will
achieve attainment or be sufficient to meet the air quality requirement
for an attainment date extension.
Even including the preliminary data for 2008, air quality for the
past few years does not show lower ozone concentrations consistent with
attainment by the 2009 ozone season. These air quality data are similar
to the photochemical grid modeling results obtained by following the
methods in EPA's guidance, showing that adjustments to the modeling
results are not needed. It is unlikely that New Jersey's nonattainment
areas will attain the ozone standard by the attainment date.
c. Summary of Weight of Evidence Discussion
With New Jersey's photochemical grid modeling results predicting a
2009 projected design value well above the air quality health standard
for New Jersey's nonattainment areas, the State has a heavy burden to
provide a demonstration that these areas will attain the ozone standard
by the attainment date. New Jersey needed to supply a substantial
amount of evidence that the model is seriously overestimating future
ozone concentrations. Modeling and air quality studies do not support
an argument that the model overpredicts concentrations in 2009.
Reductions anticipated to take effect between now and the beginning of
the 2009 ozone season are also not enough to close this gap. New Jersey
has suggested that it can adopt additional emission reduction
strategies which will reduce ozone, but these reductions are not yet in
place or are voluntary and mostly unquantifiable emission control
plans. They are not likely to reduce ozone enough to reach the standard
by 2009, even if they are implemented. EPA also cannot give much
credence to additional measures that New Jersey says it will implement,
but will not officially include as part of its attainment
demonstration.
Ozone air quality concentrations through 2007 are far above the
level needed for attainment and it is unlikely that New Jersey and the
other states impacting these two nonattainment areas will be able to
implement enough additional emission controls to reach the standard by
2009. This is supported by the lack of improvement shown in the
preliminary air quality data from 2008. Also, the present air quality
data does not support the hypothesis that the models are incorrect. If
New Jersey's hypothesis was correct, present air quality concentrations
would be closer to the standard if New Jersey's nonattainment areas
were going to reach attainment in the upcoming 2009 ozone season, when
attainment is due.
The information and calculations provided by New Jersey's SIP
emphasizes methods or data that support their claims that the
nonattainment areas could attain the standard by the deadline. EPA's
review of the ``weight of evidence'' analyses must evaluate a spectrum
of likely alternative calculations, not only those that tend to show
the area will attain the ozone standard. As noted before, the method
recommended by EPA's guidance and other reasonable variations on EPA's
methods predict the area will not attain the ozone standard by 2009.
New Jersey has provided considerable information in support of its
``weight of evidence.'' EPA has determined this information does not
demonstrate that the proposed
[[Page 21586]]
adjustments to the photochemical grid model's attainment year forecast
will give a more accurate answer than the calculations based on EPA's
recommendations in its modeling guidance.
3. What Is EPA's Evaluation?
The result of the photochemical grid modeling analysis using EPA's
recommended methods predicts that New Jersey's nonattainment areas will
not attain the standard by the attainment year of 2009. In response to
this, New Jersey has offered a number of alternative methods for using
the modeling information and additional control strategies that when
taken together might plausibly demonstrate attainment.
EPA has carefully evaluated the information provided by New Jersey
and other information it deems relevant to help predict whether ozone
air quality is likely to be in attainment of the ozone standard after
control measures are in place by the 2009 ozone season. Taking all this
information together, EPA finds the argument that attainment is likely
in 2009 is unconvincing, and EPA does not find the possibility that
attainment is plausible enough to satisfy the Clean Air Act requirement
that State Implementation Plans provide for attainment of the NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date.
In general, EPA's conclusions can be summarized as follows:
New Jersey's modeling, using an appropriate photochemical
grid model and EPA's guidance methods, does not predict attainment in
2009.
New Jersey's attainment demonstration greatly relied on
adjustments to the baseline assumptions which formed the basis of the
photochemical modeling analysis. These adjustments to the base year
starting value and the amount of reduction in ozone from 2002 to 2009
differ from EPA's modeling guidance and, more importantly, are not
sufficiently justified, and are biased toward a conclusion that New
Jersey's nonattainment areas will attain the standard.
New Jersey's attainment demonstration greatly relied on
research which evaluated the impact of a widespread power blackout to
develop an alternative approach to estimating anticipated air quality
improvements from upwind power plants. While EPA believes that this
approach provides some insight into the transport of ozone precursors,
a critical review of all the research available to EPA and New Jersey
leads EPA t
