Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of New Jersey; Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes and Approval of the Associated Maintenance Plan, 38648-38672 [2013-15147]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
38648
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0889; FRL–9827–3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
New Jersey; Redesignation of Areas
for Air Quality Planning Purposes and
Approval of the Associated
Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of New Jersey.
The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is
requesting that EPA redesignate the
New Jersey portion of the New YorkN.New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area, and the New Jersey
portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington,
PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area, from
nonattainment to attainment for the
1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour Fine
Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). In
conjunction with its redesignation
request, New Jersey submitted a SIP
revision containing a maintenance plan
for the areas that provides for continued
maintenance of the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
maintenance plan includes the 2007
attainment year emissions inventory
that EPA is proposing to approve in this
rulemaking in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
EPA is also proposing to approve a
supplement to the 2007 attainment year
emission inventory previously
submitted by the State as part of the SIP
revision. EPA is proposing that the
inventories for ammonia (NH3) and
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) that
were submitted as part of the
supplement, in conjunction with the
inventories for nitrogen oxides (NOX),
direct PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
that were previously submitted, meet
the comprehensive emissions inventory
requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to
approve the 2009 and 2025 motor
vehicle emissions budgets for PM2.5 and
NOX.
EPA previously determined that the
New Jersey portions of the New YorkN.New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
and Philadelphia-Wilmington, PAnonattainment areas have attained the
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve the request for
redesignation for the 1997 annual and
24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
maintenance plan, and the 2007
attainment year inventory based on
EPA’s determination that the areas have
met the redesignation requirements set
forth in the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 29, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R02–OAR–2012–0889 by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: Ruvo.Richard@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 212–637–3901.
4. Mail: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air
Planning Section, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007–
1866.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver
your comments to: Richard Ruvo, Chief,
Air Planning Section, 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 business hours is
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2012–
0889. 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 through
www.regulations.gov, or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. 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 email 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
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, 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
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air
Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007–
1866. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the contact 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, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Raymond Forde
(forde.raymond@epa.gov) concerning
emission inventories and Kenneth
Fradkin (fradkin.kenneth@epa.gov)
concerning other portions of the SIP
revision, Air Programs Branch, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4249.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to
take?
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed actions?
A. General
B. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR or
the Transport Rule)
III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
IV. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed
actions?
V. What is the effect of the January 4, 2013
D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5
Implementation Under Subpart 4?
A. Background
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Proposal on This issue
VI. What is EPA’s analysis of New Jersey’s
redesignation request?
A. Attainment
B. The Area Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA
C. Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
D. The Air Quality Improvement Must Be
Permanent and Enforceable
E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175A of the CAA
VII. What is EPA’s analysis of New Jersey’s
proposed NOX and PM2.5 motor vehicle
emission budgets?
VIII. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy
determination for the proposed NOX and
PM2.5 MVEBs for 2009 and 2025 for
Northern and Southern New Jersey?
IX. What action is EPA proposing to take?
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What are the actions EPA is
proposing to take?
On December 26, 2012, the State of
New Jersey, through NJDEP, submitted a
request to redesignate the New Jersey
portion of the New York-N.New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment
area (‘‘NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area’’),
and the New Jersey portion of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment area (‘‘PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment area’’) from
nonattainment to attainment for the
1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Concurrently, NJDEP
submitted a maintenance plan for the
areas as a SIP revision to ensure
continued attainment. In a
supplemental submission to EPA on
May 3, 2013, the State of New Jersey
submitted NH3 and VOC emissions
inventories to supplement the emissions
inventories that had been submitted on
December 26, 2012.
EPA is proposing to take several
actions pursuant to the redesignation of
the New Jersey portion of the NY-NJ-CT
and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas
for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to
find that the New Jersey portion of the
NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area (hereafter
referred to as the Northern New Jersey
PM2.5 ‘‘or NNJ’’ nonattainment area) and
the New Jersey portion of the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment area (hereafter referred to
as the Southern New Jersey PM2.5 ‘‘or
SNJ’’ nonattainment area) meet the
requirements for redesignation under
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus
proposing to approve New Jersey’s
request to change the legal definition of
the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas
from nonattainment to attainment. This
action does not impact the New York
and Connecticut portions of the NY-NJCT nonattainment area, or the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Pennsylvania and Delaware portions of
the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area. EPA
may take separate actions on those
portions of the nonattainment areas in a
separate rulemaking.
EPA is also proposing to approve the
maintenance plan for the NNJ and SNJ
nonattainment areas as a revision to the
New Jersey SIP. Such approval is one of
the CAA criteria for redesignation of an
area to attainment. The maintenance
plan is designed to ensure continued
attainment in the NNJ and SNJ
nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for
10 years after redesignation. The
maintenance plan includes the 2007
attainment year, 2017 interim year, and
2025 end year projection emission
inventories. EPA is also proposing to
approve the 2009 and 2025 motor
vehicle emissions budgets for PM2.5 and
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX).
In this proposed redesignation, EPA
takes into account the D.C. Circuit
January 4, 2013 decision remanding to
EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586,
April 25, 2007) and the
‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008), Natural Resources Defense
Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.
2013).
EPA’s analysis for these proposed
actions is discussed in sections V, VI
and VII of today’s proposed rulemaking
action.
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed actions?
A. General
The first air quality standards for
PM2.5 were promulgated on July 18,
1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated
an annual standard at a level of 15
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3),
based on a three-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations. In the same
rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour
standard of 65 mg/m3, based on a threeyear average of the 98th percentile of 24hour concentrations. On October 17,
2006, at 71 FR 61144, EPA retained the
annual average standard at 15 mg/m3 but
revised the 24-hour standard to 35 mg/
m3, based again on the three-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations.
On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, and
supplemented on April 14, 2005, at 70
FR 19844, EPA designated the NY-NJCT and PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas
as nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 air
quality standards. In that action, EPA
defined the NNJ nonattainment area to
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38649
include Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Mercer,
Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic,
Somerset, and Union Counties; and
defined the SNJ nonattainment area to
include Burlington, Camden, and
Gloucester Counties. On November 13,
2009, at 74 FR 58688, EPA promulgated
designations for the 24-hour standard
set in 2006, designating the NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment area as nonattainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
nonattainment area boundaries for the
NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS were identical
to the boundaries for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, containing the same counties
as listed above. EPA did not promulgate
designations for the annual average
NAAQS promulgated in 2006 since that
NAAQS was essentially identical to the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Today’s
action addresses the designation for the
annual NAAQS promulgated in 1997,
and the 24-hour NAAQS promulgated in
2006, for the NNJ and the SNJ
nonattainment areas.
In the final rulemaking action dated
November 15, 2010 (75 FR 69589), EPA
determined, pursuant to CAA section
179(c), that the entire NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area had attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon
quality assured, quality controlled, and
certified ambient air monitoring data for
the period of 2007–2009. On May 16,
2012 (77 FR 28782), EPA determined
that the entire PA-NJ-DE nonattainment
area was attaining the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon quality
assured, quality controlled, and certified
ambient air monitoring data for the
2007–2009 and 2008–2010 monitoring
periods.
EPA finalized, on December 31, 2012
(77 FR 76867), the determination that
the entire NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area
had attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, based upon quality assured,
quality controlled, and certified ambient
air monitoring data that showed that the
area had monitored attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the
2007–2009 and 2008–2010 monitoring
periods. On January 7, 2013 (78 FR 882),
EPA finalized the determination that the
PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area had
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, based upon quality assured,
quality controlled, and certified ambient
air monitoring data that showed that the
areas had monitored attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the
2008–2010 and 2009–2011 monitoring
periods.
The 3-year ambient air quality data for
the last three year monitoring periods
for the 2007–2009, 2008–2010, and
2009–2011 indicated no violations for
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38650
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Preliminary design values for
2010–2012 also indicate no violations
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. As a result of the
monitoring data continuing to show
attainment, on December 26, 2012 New
Jersey requested redesignation of the
NNJ and the SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment
areas to attainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Under the CAA, nonattainment areas
may be redesignated to attainment if
sufficient, complete, quality-assured
data is available for the Administrator to
determine that the area has attained the
standard and the area meets the other
CAA redesignation requirements under
107(d)(3)(E).
B. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR
or the Transport Rule)
On May 12, 2005, EPA published
CAIR, which requires significant
reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOX
from electric generating units (EGUs) to
limit the interstate transport of these
pollutants and the ozone and PM2.5 they
form in the atmosphere. See 70 FR
25162. The D.C. Circuit initially vacated
CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d
896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately
remanded the rule to EPA without
vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR, North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178
(D.C. Cir. 2008). In response to the D.C.
Circuit’s decision, EPA issued the
Transport Rule, also known as CSAPR,
to address interstate transport of NOX
and SO2 in the eastern United States.
See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In
that decision, it also ordered EPA to
continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending
the promulgation of a valid
replacement.’’ EME Homer City, 696
F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all
petitions for rehearing on January 24,
2013. EPA and other parties have filed
petitions for certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court, but those petitions have
not been acted on to date. Nonetheless,
EPA intends to continue to act in
accordance with the EME Homer City
opinion.
As explained below, EPA proposes
that New Jersey has demonstrated that
the attainment of the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS will be
maintained with or without the
implementation of CAIR or CSAPR.
New Jersey’s maintenance plan does not
include the emission reductions from
either program in the permanent and
enforceable Federal and State control
measures needed for attainment and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
continued maintenance. In addition, air
quality modeling analysis conducted
during the CSAPR rulemaking process
also demonstrated that the counties in
the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas will have PM2.5
levels below the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in both 2012 and
2014 without taking into account
emissions reductions from CAIR or
CSAPR. See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling
Final Rule Technical Support
Document’’ 1, App. B, B–18, B–19. This
modeling is also available in the docket
for this proposed redesignation.
III. What are the criteria for
redesignation?
Under the CAA, designations can be
revised if sufficient data is available to
warrant such revisions. Section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA identifies five
specific requirements that an area must
meet in order to be redesignated from
nonattainment to attainment.
1. The area must have attained the
applicable NAAQS.
2. The area must meet all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part
D of the CAA.
3. The area must have a fully
approved SIP under section 110 (k) of
the CAA.
4. The air quality improvement must
be permanent and enforceable.
5. The area must have a fully
approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the CAA.
EPA has provided guidance on
redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990 (April 16,
1992, 57 FR 13498, and supplemented
on April 28, 1992, 57 FR 18070) and has
provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following
documents:
1. ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992 (hereafter referred to as the
‘‘Calcagni Memorandum’’);
2. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992;
3. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part
D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
1 The document is available at https://
www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4. ‘‘Implementation Guidance for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,’’
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, March 2, 2012.
IV. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed
actions?
EPA’s approval of the redesignation
request, if made final, would change the
official designation of the NNJ and the
SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas to
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, found
at 40 CFR part 81. It would incorporate
into the New Jersey SIP a maintenance
plan ensuring continued attainment of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS until 2025. The
maintenance plan includes, among
other elements, contingency measures to
remedy any future violations, should
they occur, of the 1997 annual PM2.5
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Approval of the 2007 base year
emissions inventory, which is part of
the maintenance plan, will satisfy the
inventory requirements under section
172(c)(3) of the CAA.
V. What is the effect of the January 4,
2013 D.C. Circuit decision regarding
PM2.5 implementation under subpart 4?
A. Background
As discussed in section I, on January
4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense
Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit
remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72
FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the
‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428
(D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that
EPA erred in implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general
implementation provisions of subpart 1
of part D of Title I of the CAA, rather
than the particulate-matter-specific
provisions of subpart 4 of part D of Title
I. Although the Court’s ruling did not
directly address the 2006 PM2.5
standard, EPA is taking into account the
Court’s position on subpart 4 and the
1997 PM2.5 standard in evaluating
redesignations for the 2006 standard.
B. Proposal on This Issue
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision
does not prevent EPA from
redesignating the NNJ and SNJ
nonattainment areas to attainment for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Even
in light of the Court’s decision,
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
redesignation for this area is appropriate
under the CAA and EPA’s longstanding
interpretations of the CAA’s provisions
regarding redesignation. EPA first
explains its longstanding interpretation
that requirements that are imposed, or
that become due, after a complete
redesignation request is submitted for
an area that is attaining the standard, are
not applicable for purposes of
evaluating a redesignation request.
Second, EPA then shows that, even if
EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements
to the New Jersey redesignation request
and disregards the provisions of its 1997
PM2.5 implementation rule recently
remanded by the Court, the State’s
request for redesignation of this area
still qualifies for approval. EPA’s
discussion takes into account the effect
of the Court’s ruling on the area’s
maintenance plan, which EPA views as
approvable when subpart 4
requirements are considered.
1. Applicable Requirements for
Purposes of Evaluating the
Redesignation Request
With respect to the 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule, the Court’s
January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA’s
reasons for implementing the PM2.5
NAAQS solely in accordance with the
provisions of subpart 1, and remanded
that matter to EPA, so that it could
address implementation of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of part D
of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For
the purposes of evaluating New Jersey’s
redesignation request for the areas, to
the extent that implementation under
subpart 4 would impose additional
requirements for areas designated
nonattainment, EPA believes that those
requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for
the purposes of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not
required to consider subpart 4
requirements with respect to the New
Jersey redesignation. Under its
longstanding interpretation of the CAA,
EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E)
to mean, as a threshold matter, that the
part D provisions which are
‘‘applicable’’ and which must be
approved in order for EPA to
redesignate an area include only those
which came due prior to a state’s
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See Calcagni memorandum
referenced in section III. See also SIP
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator, Air and Radiation,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
September 17, 1993 (Shapiro
memorandum); Final Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459,
12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final
Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68
FR 25418, 25424–25427, May 12, 2003);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541
(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s
redesignation rulemaking applying this
interpretation and expressly rejecting
Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of
‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is
‘‘whatever should have been in the plan
at the time of attainment rather than
whatever actually was in the plan and
already implemented or due at the time
of attainment’’).2 In this case, at the time
that New Jersey submitted its
redesignation request, requirements
under subpart 4 were not due, and
indeed, were not yet known to apply.
EPA’s view that, for purposes of
evaluating the NNJ and SNJ
redesignation, the subpart 4
requirements were not due at the time
the State submitted the redesignation
request is in keeping with the EPA’s
interpretation of subpart 2 requirements
for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated
subsequent to the D.C. Circuit’s decision
in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.
v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
In South Coast, the Court found that
EPA was not permitted to implement
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely
under subpart 1, and held that EPA was
required under the statute to implement
the standard under the ozone-specific
requirements of subpart 2 as well.
Subsequent to the South Coast decision,
in evaluating and acting upon
redesignation requests for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard that were
submitted to EPA for areas under
subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding
interpretation of the CAA that
‘‘applicable requirements’’, for purposes
of evaluating a redesignation, are those
that had been due at the time the
redesignation request was submitted.
See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of
Manitowoc County and Door County
Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047,
22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions,
EPA therefore did not consider subpart
2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for
the purposes of evaluating whether the
area should be redesignated under
section 107(d)(3)(E).
EPA’s interpretation derives from the
provisions of CAA section 107(d)(3).
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an
area to be redesignated, a state must
2 Applicable requirements of the CAA that come
due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete
redesignation request remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not required as
a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of
the CAA.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38651
meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to
the area under section 110 and part D’’.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the
EPA must have fully approved the
‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking
redesignation. These two sections read
together support EPA’s interpretation of
‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements
that came due prior to submission of a
complete redesignation request. First,
holding states to an ongoing obligation
to adopt new CAA requirements that
arose after the state submitted its
redesignation request, in order to be
redesignated, would make it
problematic or impossible for EPA to act
on redesignation requests in accordance
with the 18-month deadline Congress
set for EPA action in section
107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable
requirements’’ were interpreted to be a
continuing flow of requirements with no
reasonable limitation, states, after
submitting a redesignation request,
would be forced continuously to make
additional SIP submissions that in turn
would require EPA to undertake further
notice-and-comment rulemaking actions
to act on those submissions. This would
create a regime of unceasing rulemaking
that would delay action on the
redesignation request beyond the 18month timeframe provided by the Act
for this purpose.
Second, a fundamental premise for
redesignating a nonattainment area to
attainment is that the area has attained
the relevant NAAQS due to emission
reductions from existing controls. Thus,
an area for which a redesignation
request has been submitted would have
already attained the NAAQS as a result
of satisfying statutory requirements that
came due prior to the submission of the
request. Absent a showing that
unadopted and unimplemented
requirements are necessary for future
maintenance, it is reasonable to view
the requirements applicable for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request as including only those SIP
requirements that have already come
due. These are the requirements that led
to attainment of the NAAQS. To require,
for redesignation approval, that a state
also satisfy additional SIP requirements
coming due after the state submits its
complete redesignation request, and
while EPA is reviewing it, would
compel the state to do more than is
necessary to attain the NAAQS, without
a showing that the additional
requirements are necessary for
maintenance.
In the context of this redesignation,
the timing and nature of the Court’s
January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v.
EPA compound the consequences of
imposing requirements that come due
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38652
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
after the redesignation request is
submitted. The State submitted its
redesignation request on December 26,
2012, but the Court did not issue its
decision remanding EPA’s 1997 PM2.5
implementation rule concerning the
applicability of the provisions of
subpart 4 until January 2013.
To require the State’s fully-completed
and pending redesignation request to
comply now with requirements of
subpart 4 that the Court announced only
in January, 2013, would be to give
retroactive effect to such requirements
when the State had no notice that it was
required to meet them. The D.C. Circuit
recognized the inequity of this type of
retroactive impact in Sierra Club v.
Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),3
where it upheld the District Court’s
ruling refusing to make retroactive
EPA’s determination that the St. Louis
area did not meet its attainment
deadline. In that case, petitioners urged
the Court to make EPA’s nonattainment
determination effective as of the date
that the statute required, rather than the
later date on which EPA actually made
the determination. The Court rejected
this view, stating that applying it
‘‘would likely impose large costs on
States, which would face fines and suits
for not implementing air pollution
prevention plans . . . even though they
were not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at
68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable
to penalize the State of New Jersey by
rejecting its redesignation request for an
area that is already attaining the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards and that met
all applicable requirements known to be
in effect at the time of the request. For
EPA now to reject the redesignation
request solely because the state did not
expressly address subpart 4
requirements of which it had no notice,
would inflict the same unfairness
condemned by the Court in Sierra Club
v. Whitman.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Subpart 4 Requirements and New
Jersey Redesignation Request
Even if EPA were to take the view that
the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision
requires that, in the context of pending
redesignations, subpart 4 requirements
were due and in effect at the time the
State submitted its redesignation
request, EPA proposes to determine that
the NNJ and SNJ areas still qualify for
3 Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and
distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit decision that
addressed retroactivity in a quite different context,
where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give
its regulations retroactive effect. National
Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 630 F.3d
145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d
958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571
(2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
redesignation to attainment. As
explained below, EPA believes that the
redesignation request for the NNJ and
SNJ areas, though not expressed in
terms of subpart 4 requirements,
substantively meets the requirements of
that subpart for purposes of
redesignating the area to attainment.
With respect to evaluating the
relevant substantive requirements of
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating
the NNJ and SNJ areas, EPA notes that
subpart 4 incorporates components of
subpart 1 of part D, which contains
general air quality planning
requirements for areas designated as
nonattainment. See section 172(c).
Subpart 4 itself contains specific
planning and scheduling requirements
for PM10 4 nonattainment areas, and
under the Court’s January 4, 2013
decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same
statutory requirements also apply for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has
longstanding general guidance that
interprets the 1990 amendments to the
CAA, making recommendations to states
for meeting the statutory requirements
for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See,
‘‘State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments
of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)
(the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General
Preamble, EPA discussed the
relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4
SIP requirements, and pointed out that
subpart 1 requirements were to an
extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally
related to, the more specific PM–10
requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16,
1992). The subpart 1 requirements
include, among other things, provisions
for attainment demonstrations,
reasonably available control measures
(RACM), reasonable further progress
(RFP), emissions inventories, and
contingency measures.
For the purposes of this redesignation,
in order to identify any additional
requirements which would apply under
subpart 4, we are considering the NNJ
and SNJ areas to be ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5
nonattainment areas. Under section 188
of the CAA, all areas designated
nonattainment areas under subpart 4
would initially be classified by
operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’
nonattainment areas, and would remain
moderate nonattainment areas unless
and until EPA reclassifies the area as a
‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area.
Accordingly, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to limit the evaluation of
the potential impact of subpart 4
requirements to those that would be
applicable to moderate nonattainment
areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart
4 apply to moderate nonattainment
areas and include the following: (1) An
approved permit program for
construction of new and modified major
stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A));
(2) an attainment demonstration (section
189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM
(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4)
quantitative milestones demonstrating
RFP toward attainment by the
applicable attainment date (section
189(c)).
The permit requirements of subpart 4,
as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A),
refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit
provisions requirements of sections 172
and 173 to PM10, without adding to
them. Consequently, EPA believes that
section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself
impose for redesignation purposes any
additional requirements for moderate
areas beyond those contained in subpart
1. In any event, in the context of
redesignation, EPA has long relied on
the interpretation that a fully approved
nonattainment new source review
program is not considered an applicable
requirement for redesignation, provided
the area can maintain the standard with
a prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) program after redesignation. A
detailed rationale for this view is
described in a memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60
FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996).
With respect to the specific
attainment planning requirements under
subpart 4,5 when EPA evaluates a
redesignation request under either
subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is
attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed
as having satisfied the attainment
planning requirements for these
subparts. For redesignations, EPA has
for many years interpreted attainmentlinked requirements as not applicable
for areas attaining the standard. In the
General Preamble, EPA stated that:
4 PM
10 refers to particulates nominally 10
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
5 i.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM,
milestone requirements, contingency measures.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The requirements for RFP will not apply in
evaluating a request for redesignation to
attainment since, at a minimum, the air
quality data for the area must show that the
area has already attained. Showing that the
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
State will make RFP towards attainment will,
therefore, have no meaning at that point.
‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990’’; (57 FR 13498,
13564, April 16, 1992).
The General Preamble also explained
that
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are
directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by
the applicable date. These requirements no
longer apply when an area has attained the
standard and is eligible for redesignation.
Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance
plans . . . provides specific requirements for
contingency measures that effectively
supersede the requirements of section
172(c)(9) for these areas.
Id.
EPA similarly stated in its 1992
Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The
requirements for reasonable further
progress and other measures needed for
attainment will not apply for
redesignations because they only have
meaning for areas not attaining the
standard.’’
It is evident that even if we were to
consider the Court’s January 4, 2013
decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that
attainment-related requirements specific
to subpart 4 should be imposed
retroactively and thus are now past due,
those requirements do not apply to an
area that is attaining the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards, for the purpose of
evaluating a pending request to
redesignate the area to attainment. EPA
has consistently enunciated this
interpretation of applicable
requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E)
since the General Preamble was
published more than twenty years ago.
Courts have recognized the scope of
EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable
requirements’’ in the redesignation
context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
Moreover, even outside the context of
redesignations, EPA has viewed the
obligations to submit attainment-related
SIP planning requirements of subpart 4
as inapplicable for areas that EPA
determines are attaining the standard.
EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’
rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also
governed by the requirements of subpart
4, explain EPA’s reasoning. They
describe the effects of a determination of
attainment on the attainment-related SIP
planning requirements of subpart 4. See
‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso
Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR
27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso
Junction proposed PM10 redesignation,
(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010);
Proposed and Final Determinations of
Attainment for San Joaquin
Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
40954–40955, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR
63641, 63643–63647 October 30, 2006).
In short, EPA in this context has also
long concluded that to require states to
meet superfluous SIP planning
requirements is not necessary and not
required by the CAA, so long as those
areas continue to attain the relevant
NAAQS.
Elsewhere in this action, EPA
proposes to determine that the NNJ and
SNJ areas continue to attain the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards. Under its
longstanding interpretation, EPA is
proposing to determine here that the
areas meet the attainment-related plan
requirements of subparts 1 and 4.
Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude
that the requirements to submit an
attainment demonstration under
189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination
under section 172(c)(1) and section
189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under
189(c)(1), and contingency measure
requirements under section 172(c)(9) are
satisfied for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request.
3. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5
Precursors
The DC Circuit in NRDC v. EPA
remanded to EPA the two rules at issue
in the case with instructions to EPA to
re-promulgate them consistent with the
requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this
section addresses the Court’s opinion
with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While
past implementation of subpart 4 for
PM10 has allowed for control of PM10
precursors such as NOX from major
stationary, mobile, and area sources in
order to attain the standard as
expeditiously as practicable, CAA
section 189(e) specifically provides that
control requirements for major
stationary sources of direct PM10 shall
also apply to PM10 precursors from
those sources, except where EPA
determines that major stationary sources
of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels which
exceed the standard in the area.’’
EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation
rule, remanded by the DC Circuit,
contained rebuttable presumptions
concerning certain PM2.5 precursors
applicable to attainment plans and
control measures related to those plans.
Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA
provided, among other things, that a
state was ‘‘not required to address VOC
[and NH3] as . . . PM2.5 attainment plan
precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of
VOC [and NH3] emissions in the State
for control measures.’’ EPA intended
these to be rebuttable presumptions.
EPA established these presumptions at
the time because of uncertainties
regarding the emission inventories for
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38653
these pollutants and the effectiveness of
specific control measures in various
regions of the country in reducing PM2.5
concentrations. EPA also left open the
possibility for such regulation of VOC
and NH3 in specific areas where that
was necessary.
The Court in its January 4, 2013
decision made reference to both section
189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated
that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, we
need not address the petitioners’
challenge to the presumptions in [40
CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic
compounds and NH3 are not PM2.5
precursors, as subpart 4 expressly
governs precursor presumptions.’’
NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10.
Elsewhere in the Court’s opinion,
however, the Court observed:
NH3 is a precursor to fine particulate
matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5
and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area
governed by subpart 4, a precursor is
presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 7513a(e) [section 189(e)].
Id. at 21, n.7.
For a number of reasons, EPA believes
that its proposed redesignation of the
NNJ and SNJ areas is consistent with the
Court’s decision on this aspect of
subpart 4. First, while the Court, citing
section 189(e), stated that ‘‘for a PM10
area governed by subpart 4, a precursor
is ‘presumptively regulated,’ ’’ the Court
expressly declined to decide the specific
challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5
implementation rule provisions
regarding NH3 and VOC as precursors.
The Court had no occasion to reach
whether and how it was substantively
necessary to regulate any specific
precursor in a particular PM2.5
nonattainment area, and did not address
what might be necessary for purposes of
acting upon a redesignation request.
However, even if EPA takes the view
that the requirements of subpart 4 were
deemed applicable at the time the state
submitted the redesignation request,
and disregards the implementation
rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding
NH3 and VOC as PM2.5 precursors (and
any similar provisions reflected in
guidance for the 2006 PM2.5 standard),
the regulatory consequence would be to
consider the need for regulation of all
precursors from any sources in the area
to demonstrate attainment and to apply
the section 189(e) provisions to major
stationary sources of precursors. In the
case of the NNJ and SNJ areas EPA
believes that doing so is consistent with
proposing redesignation of the areas for
the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5
standards. The NNJ and SNJ areas have
attained the standard without any
specific additional controls of VOC and
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38654
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
NH3 emissions from any sources in the
area.
Precursors in subpart 4 are
specifically regulated under the
provisions of section 189(e), which
requires, with important exceptions,
control requirements for major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors.6
Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior
implementation rule, all major
stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors
were subject to regulation, with the
exception of NH3 and VOC. Thus we
must address here whether additional
controls of NH3 and VOC from major
stationary sources are required under
section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to
redesignate the area for the 1997 PM2.5
and 2006 PM2.5 standards. As explained
below, we do not believe that any
additional controls of NH3 and VOC are
required in the context of this
redesignation.
In the General Preamble, EPA
discusses its approach to implementing
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542.
With regard to precursor regulation
under section 189(e), the General
Preamble explicitly stated that control
of VOCs under other Act requirements
may suffice to relieve a state from the
need to adopt precursor controls under
section 189(e). 57 FR 13542. EPA in this
proposal proposes to determine that the
SIP has met the provisions of section
189(e) with respect to NH3 and VOCs as
precursors. This proposed
determination is based on our findings
that (1) the NNJ and SNJ areas contain
no major stationary sources of NH3, and
(2) existing major stationary sources of
VOC are adequately controlled under
other provisions of the CAA regulating
the ozone NAAQS.7 In the alternative,
EPA proposes to determine that, under
the express exception provisions of
section 189(e), and in the context of the
redesignation of the area, which is
attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
standards, at present NH3 and VOC
precursors from major stationary
sources do not contribute significantly
to levels exceeding the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards in the NNJ and SNJ
areas. See 57 FR 13539–42.
EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5
implementation rule provisions in 40
6 Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for
purposes of demonstrating attainment as
expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to
evaluate all economically and technologically
feasible control measures for direct PM emissions
and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures
that are deemed reasonably available.
7 The NNJ and SNJ areas have reduced VOC
emissions through the implementation of various
control programs including VOC Reasonably
Available Control Technology regulations and
various on-road and non-road motor vehicle control
programs.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
CFR 51.1002 were not directed at
evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the
context of redesignation, but at SIP
plans and control measures required to
bring a nonattainment area into
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
By contrast, redesignation to attainment
primarily requires the area to have
already attained due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions, and to
demonstrate that controls in place can
continue to maintain the standard.
Thus, even if we regard the Court’s
January 4, 2013 decision as calling for
‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of NH3 and
VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment
planning provisions of subpart 4, those
provisions in and of themselves do not
require additional controls of these
precursors for an area that already
qualifies for redesignation. Nor does
EPA believe that requiring New Jersey to
address precursors differently than they
have already would result in a
substantively different outcome.
Although, as EPA has emphasized, its
consideration here of precursor
requirements under subpart 4 is in the
context of a redesignation to attainment,
EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart
4 requirements with respect to
precursors in attainment plans for PM10
contemplates that states may develop
attainment plans that regulate only
those precursors that are necessary for
purposes of attainment in the area in
question, i.e., states may determine that
only certain precursors need be
regulated for attainment and control
purposes.8 Courts have upheld this
approach to the requirements of subpart
4 for PM10.9 EPA believes that
application of this approach to PM2.5
precursors under subpart 4 is
reasonable. Because the NNJ and SNJ
areas have already attained the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with its current
approach to regulation of PM2.5
precursors, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to conclude in the context of
this redesignation that there is no need
to revisit the attainment control strategy
with respect to the treatment of
precursors. Even if the Court’s decision
is construed to impose an obligation, in
evaluating this redesignation request, to
consider additional precursors under
subpart 4, it would not affect EPA’s
approval here of New Jersey’s request
8 See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin
Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area
Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual
PM–10 Standards,’’ 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004)
(approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose
controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did
not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia
emissions).
9 See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et
al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for redesignation of the NNJ and SNJ
areas. In the context of a redesignation,
the areas have shown that they have
attained the standards. Moreover, the
State has shown and EPA is proposing
to determine that attainment in these
areas are due to permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions on all
precursors necessary to provide for
continued attainment. It follows
logically that no further control of
additional precursors is necessary.
Accordingly, EPA does not view the
January 4, 2013 decision of the Court as
precluding redesignation of the NNJ and
SNJ areas to attainment for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.
In sum, even if New Jersey were
required to address precursors for the
NNJ and SNJ areas under subpart 4
rather than under subpart 1, as
interpreted in EPA’s remanded PM2.5
implementation rule, EPA would still
conclude that the area had met all
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v).
VI. What is EPA’s analysis of New
Jersey’s redesignation request?
In an effort to comply with the CAA
and to ensure continued attainment of
the NAAQS, on December 26, 2012, the
State of New Jersey submitted a
redesignation request and maintenance
plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
The following is a description of how
the state has fulfilled each of the CAA
redesignation requirements.
A. Attainment
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). In this action for
this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to
determine that the NY-NJ-CT and the
PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas are
continuing to attain the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
An area may be considered to be
attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
if it meets the NAAQS as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.7 and
Appendix N of part 50, based on three
complete, consecutive calendar years of
quality-assured air quality monitoring
data. To attain this standard, the threeyear average of annual means must be
less than or equal to 15 mg/m3 at all
relevant monitoring sites in the subject
area. The relevant data must be
collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38655
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
recorded in the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS). The monitors meet data
completeness requirements when ‘‘at
least 75 percent of the scheduled
sampling days for each quarter have
valid data.’’ The use of less than
complete data is subject to the approval
of EPA, which may consider factors
such as monitoring site closures/moves,
monitoring diligence, and nearby
concentrations in determining whether
to use such data.
As noted in section IIA above, EPA
has finalized determinations that the
NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE nonattainment
areas had attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has also reviewed
more recent quality-assured data for
both NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas. The ambient air
monitoring data submitted by New
Jersey shows PM2.5 concentrations
attaining the annual PM2.5 NAAQS for
the 2009–2011 time period for both
nonattainment areas.
Table 1, below, shows the design
value by county (i.e., 3-year average) of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations) for
the 2009–2011 time period for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-NJ-CT
PM2.5 nonattainment area monitors.
Table 2, below, shows the design value
for the 2009–2011 time period for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the PANJ-DE nonattainment area monitors.
Preliminary design values10 for the
2010–2012 time period is also shown.
TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE NY-NJ-CT 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3)
[The standard is 15.0 μg/m3]
Nonattainment area counties
Preliminary
annual mean
concentration
2009
NEW JERSEY:
Bergen ..............................................
Essex ................................................
Hudson ..............................................
Mercer ...............................................
Middlesex ..........................................
Monmouth .........................................
Morris ................................................
Passaic .............................................
Somerset ...........................................
Union .................................................
NEW YORK:
Bronx .................................................
Kings .................................................
Nassau ..............................................
New York ..........................................
Orange ..............................................
Queens .............................................
Richmond ..........................................
Rockland ...........................................
Suffolk ...............................................
Westchester ......................................
CONNECTICUT:
Fairfield .............................................
New Haven .......................................
2010
2011
Preliminary
2012 3-year
annual design
value
2012
Annual mean concentrations
2011 3-year
annual design
value
2009–2011
2010–2012
9.1
INC
10.8
9.3
8.1
NM
8.1
9.0
NM
11.3
8.8
9.2
10.6
9.5
7.4
NM
8.5
8.9
NM
10.6
9.8
10.5
11.8
10.3
8.3
NM
8.7
10.1
NM
12.2
8.9
9.0
10.9
8.8
* 8.3
NM
7.9
9.1
NM
10.7
9.2
INC
11.1
9.7
7.9
NM
8.5
9.3
........................
11.4
9.2
9.5
11.1
9.5
* 8.0
NM
8.4
* 9.3
........................
11.2
12.7
10.7
9.0
11.6
7.9
9.5
9.8
NM
8.1
9.1
11.4
9.9
8.7
11.5
8.1
9.4
9.7
NM
8.4
8.8
11.6
10.3
8.9
12.2
8.6
9.3
10.1
NM
8.8
9.3
9.5
9.7
(*)
11.7
* 7.8
8.5
9.4
NM
7.9
(*)
11.9
10.3
8.9
11.7
8.2
9.4
9.8
NM
8.4
9.1
9.8
9.9
(*)
11.8
* 8.2
* 9.1
9.6*
NM
8.4
(*)
9.4
9.9
8.8
9.0
10.0
10.0
9.3
9.2
9.4
9.6
9.4
9.4
INC—All counties listed as INC did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement for the relevant time period.
NM—No monitor located in county.
*—Missing 1 or more quarters.
TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PA-NJ-DE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3)
[The standard is 15.0 μg/m3]
Nonattainment area counties
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
NEW JERSEY:
Camden ............................................
Gloucester .........................................
Burlington ..........................................
DELAWARE:
New Castle .......................................
PENNSYLVANIA:
Bucks ................................................
Chester .............................................
2010
2011
2011 3-year
annual design
value
Preliminary
2012 3-year
annual design
value
2012
Annual mean concentrations
2009
10 All
Preliminary
annual mean
concentration
2009–2011
2010–2012
9.5
9.3
NM
10.3
10.0
NM
10.1
9.4
NM
9.0
9.4
NM
9.7
9.3
NM
9.5
* 9.3
NM
11.2
11.7
10.3
10.3
10.7
10.4
10.8
14.1
10.5
13.8
11.5
13.3
10.7
9.8
10.9
13.7
10.9
* 12.3
data for 2012 has been quality-assured.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38656
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PA-NJ-DE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3)—Continued
[The standard is 15.0 μg/m3]
Nonattainment area counties
Preliminary
annual mean
concentration
2009
Delaware ...........................................
Montgomery ......................................
Philadelphia ......................................
2010
12.4
10.4
11.1
2011
13.5
9.5
11.0
Preliminary
2012 3-year
annual design
value
2012
Annual mean concentrations
2011 3-year
annual design
value
2009–2011
2010–2012
12.9
10.3
11.4
* 12.8
9.7
16.4
12.9
10.1
11.2
* 13.1
9.8
13.4
NM—No monitor located in county.
*—Missing 1 or more quarters.
Air monitoring data indicates that the
NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas continue to meet
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA
concludes that NY-NJ-CT and the PANJ-DE nonattainment areas are
continuing to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA proposes
that the statutory criterion for
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS (40 CFR 50.7 and Appendix N
of part 50) has been met.
2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
An area may be considered to be
attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS if it meets the NAAQS as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR
50.13 and Appendix N of part 50, based
on three complete, consecutive calendar
years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. To attain this standard,
the 98th percentile 24-hour
concentration, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix N, is less than or equal to 35
mg/m3 at all relevant monitoring sites in
the subject area over a 3-year period.
The relevant data must be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40
CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA’s
AQS. The monitors meet data
completeness requirements when ‘‘at
least 75 percent of the scheduled
sampling days for each quarter have
valid data.’’ The use of less than
complete data is subject to the approval
of EPA, which may consider factors
such as monitoring site closures/moves,
monitoring diligence, and nearby
concentrations in determining whether
to use such data.
EPA previously finalized
determinations that the NY-NJ-CT and
PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas had
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, as noted in section IIA. EPA
has also reviewed more recent qualityassured data for both NY-NJ-CT and the
PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas. The
ambient air monitoring data submitted
by New Jersey shows PM2.5
concentrations attaining the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2009–2011 time
period for both nonattainment areas.
Table 3, below, shows the design
value by county for the 98th percentile
24-hour PM2.5 concentrations for the
2009–2011 time period for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-NJ-CT
PM2.5 nonattainment area monitors.
Table 4 shows the design value by
county for the 2009–2011 time period
for the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area
monitors. Preliminary design values 11
for the 2010–2012 time period is also
shown.
TABLE 3—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE NY-NJ-CT 2006 24–HOUR PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3)
[The standard is 35 μg/m3]
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2009
NEW JERSEY:
Bergen ..............................................
Essex ................................................
Hudson ..............................................
Mercer ...............................................
Middlesex ..........................................
Monmouth .........................................
Morris ................................................
Passaic .............................................
Somerset ...........................................
Union .................................................
NEW YORK:
Bronx .................................................
Kings .................................................
Nassau ..............................................
New York ..........................................
Orange ..............................................
Queens .............................................
Richmond ..........................................
Rockland ...........................................
2010
2011
2011 3-year
24-hour design
value
Preliminary
2012 3-year
24-hour design
value
2012
98th percentile 24-hour
concentrations
Nonattainment area counties
11 All
Preliminary
98th percentile
24-hour
concentration
2009–2011
2010–2012
27.1
INC
29.2
23.0
21.0
NM
20.9
26.1
NM
27.7
25.1
INC
25.9
26.9
19.1
NM
22.7
24.4
NM
28.1
23.5
23.9
28.2
27.7
20.5
NM
24.4
25.4
NM
32.9
19.2
21.5
24.6
20.5
* 17.5
NM
18.2
21.4
NM
25.8
25
INC
28
26
20
NM
23
25
NM
30
23
23
26
25
* 19
NM
21
* 24
NM
29
30.0
26.9
25.8
29.0
20.6
26.7
24.6
NM
27.0
24.8
20.2
27.0
26.5
25.5
25.5
NM
27.0
24.3
23.1
26.8
20.8
24.7
23.2
NM
25.1
22.1
(*)
24.9
* 20.2
20.5
22.1
NM
28
25
23
28
23
26
24
NM
24
24
(*)
26
* 23
* 24
* 24
NM
data for 2012 has been quality-assured.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:31 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38657
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE NY-NJ-CT 2006 24–HOUR PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3)—Continued
[The standard is 35 μg/m3]
Preliminary
98th percentile
24-hour concentration
2009
Suffolk ...............................................
Westchester ......................................
CONNECTICUT:
Fairfield .............................................
New Haven .......................................
2010
2011
Preliminary
2012 3-year
24-hour design
value
2012
98th percentile 24-hour
concentrations
Nonattainment area counties
2011 3-year
24-hour design
value
2009–2011
2010–2012
21.6
27.0
26.1
26.7
21.7
22.7
18.7
(*)
23
25
22
(*)
26.4
30.2
24.2
25.5
25.2
27.5
22.5
22.0
26
28
24
25
NM—No monitor located in county.
INC—All counties listed as INC did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement for the relevant time period.
*—Missing 1 or more quarters.
TABLE 4—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PA-NJ-DE 2006 24–HOUR PM2.5 AREA (μg/m3)
[The standard is 35 μg/m3]
Nonattainment area counties
Preliminary
98th percentile
24-hour concentration
2009
NEW JERSEY:
Camden ............................................
Gloucester .........................................
Burlington ..........................................
DELAWARE:
New Castle .......................................
PENNSYLVANIA:
Bucks ................................................
Chester .............................................
Delaware ...........................................
Montgomery ......................................
Philadelphia ......................................
2010
2011
Preliminary
2012 3-year
24-hour design
value
2012
98th percentile 24-hour concentrations
2011 3-year
24-hour design
value
2009–2011
2010–2012
25.0
21.9
NM
23.4
21.6
NM
24.3
22.2
NM
19.8
21.8
NM
24
22
NM
23
* 22
NM
28.4
27.9
24.7
24.2
27
26
25.8
31.1
27.9
27.2
28.6
28.3
35.1
32.8
25.9
28.9
29.7
33.8
28.6
27.6
30.6
28.2
24.1
* 31.1
21.8
31.4
28
33
30
27
29
29
31
* 31
25
30
NM—No monitor located in county.
*—Missing 1 or more quarters.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Air monitoring data indicates that the
NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas continue to meet
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA
concludes that the NY-NJ-CT and the
PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas are
continuing to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA proposes
that the statutory criterion for
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS (40 CFR 50.13 and Appendix N
of part 50) has been met.
B. The Area Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA
EPA has determined that the NNJ and
the SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas have
met all SIP requirements applicable for
purposes of this redesignation under
section 110 of the CAA (General SIP
Requirements) and that, upon final
approval of the 2007 attainment year
emissions inventory, as discussed below
in this proposed rulemaking, it will
have met all applicable SIP
requirements under part D of Title I of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
the CAA, in accordance with CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA
is proposing to find that all applicable
requirements of the New Jersey SIP for
purposes of redesignation have been
approved in accordance with CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
1. Section 110 SIP Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for
a SIP, which include enforceable
emissions limitations and other control
measures, means, or techniques,
provisions for the establishment and
operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air
quality, and programs to enforce the
limitations. The general SIP elements
and requirements set forth in CAA
section 110(a)(2) include, but are not
limited to the following:
• Submittal of a SIP that has been
adopted by the state after reasonable
public notice and hearing;
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
• Implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD));
• Provisions for the implementation
of part D requirements for New Source
Review (NSR) permit programs;
• Provisions for air pollution
modeling; and
• Provisions for public and local
agency participation in planning and
emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA
requires that SIPs contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state
from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To
implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish
programs to address the interstate
transport of air pollutants in accordance
with the NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998
(63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38658
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298)
and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and
CAIR, May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162).
However, the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked
with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification in that
state. EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classifications are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable,
continue to apply to a state regardless of
the designation of any one particular
area in the state. Thus, EPA does not
believe that these requirements are
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the
other CAA section 110(a)(2) elements
not connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The area will still be
subject to these requirements after it is
redesignated. EPA concludes that the
CAA section 110(a)(2) and part D
requirements which are linked with a
particular area’s designation and
classification are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request, and that CAA section 110(a)(2)
elements not linked in the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. This
approach is consistent with EPA’s
existing policy on applicability of
conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October
10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final
rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996);
and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60
FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also
the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR at
37890, June 19, 2000) and in the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation
(66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001).
On April 10, 2013 (78 FR at 21296)
EPA proposed action on New Jersey’s
section 110 ‘‘infrastructure SIPs’’
required under CAA section 110(a)(2)
that were submitted by the state. New
Jersey submitted an infrastructure SIP
on February 25, 2008 that addressed the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On January
20, 2010 the state submitted an
infrastructure SIP that addressed the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA will
be acting on those SIPs under separate
actions.
EPA has reviewed the New Jersey SIP
and has concluded that it meets the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
general SIP requirements under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA to the extent they
are applicable for purposes for
redesignating the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas to attainment for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Notwithstanding the fact that EPA has
not yet completed rulemaking on New
Jersey’s submittals for the PM2.5
infrastructure SIP elements of section
110(a)(2), these requirements are,
however, statewide requirements that
are not linked to the PM2.5
nonattainment status of the NNJ and
SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP
elements are not applicable
requirements for purposes of review of
New Jersey’s PM2.5 redesignation
request.
2. Title I, part D nonattainment
requirements
Subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the
CAA sets forth the basic nonattainment
requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas. All areas that were
designated nonattainment for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS were
designated under this subpart of the
CAA, and the requirements applicable
to them are contained in sections 172
and 176. EPA’s analysis of the
particulate-matter-specific provisions of
Subpart 4 of part D of Title I as a result
of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit
decision is discussed earlier in this
notice.
Section 172 Requirements
Under CAA section172, states with
nonattainment areas must submit plans
providing for timely attainment and
meet a variety of other requirements. As
mentioned, EPA has finalized
determinations that the NY-NJ-CT and
PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas had
attained the 1997 annual and the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Notwithstanding that New Jersey’s
obligation to submit an attainment
demonstration, RACT/RACM, RFP,
contingency measures, and other
planning SIPs related to the attainment
of the PM2.5 NAAQS has been
suspended due to EPA’s determination
that the nonattainment areas attained
the NAAQS, New Jersey had previously
submitted a SIP revision (PM2.5
attainment plan) for attaining the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP was
submitted to EPA on April 1, 2009. EPA
proposed to approve the PM2.5
attainment plan on December 14, 2012
(77 FR 74421). As a result of the
determination of attainment, the only
remaining requirement to be considered
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
is the emission inventory required
under CAA section 172(c)(3).
The General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I also discusses
the evaluation of these requirements in
the context of EPA’s consideration of a
redesignation request. The General
Preamble sets forth EPA’s view of
applicable requirements for purposes of
evaluating redesignation requests when
an area is attaining the standard. See
General Preamble for Implementation of
Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
Because attainment has been reached
for the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas, no additional
measures are needed to provide for
attainment. CAA section 172(c)(1)
requirements for an attainment
demonstration and RACT/RACM are no
longer considered to be applicable
requirements for as long as the area
continues to attain the standard until
redesignation. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c).
The RFP requirement under CAA
section 172(c)(2) is similarly not
relevant for purposes of redesignation.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission
and approval of a comprehensive,
accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions. As part of the maintenance
plan submitted by New Jersey on
December 26, 2012, and further
supplemented on May 3, 2013, the State
has submitted an attainment year
inventory that meets this requirement.
For purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, the
emissions inventory should address not
only direct emissions of PM2.5, but also
emissions of all precursors with the
potential to participate in PM2.5
formation, i.e., SO2, NOX, VOC and NH3.
The 2007 attainment year emissions
inventory submitted by New Jersey in
the December 26, 2012 submission
addressed PM2.5 (including
condensables), SO2, and NOX emissions.
The May 3, 2013 submission addressed
VOC and NH3.
The emissions cover the general
source categories of point sources, area
sources, onroad sources and nonroad
sources. The proposed approval of the
2007 attainment year emissions
inventory in this rulemaking action will,
when finalized, meet the requirements
of CAA section 172(c)(3).
The 2007 emissions inventory was
prepared by NJDEP and is presented in
Tables 7A and 7B located in section
VI.E.2(a), Attainment Emissions
Inventory, of this action. The tables
show the 2007 base year PM2.5, NOx,
SO2, VOC and NH3 annual emission
inventories for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas. EPA’s detailed
evaluation of the base year inventories
for all pollutants are addressed in
section VI.E.2.(a), Attainment Emissions
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Inventory, of this action. A copy of the
Technical Support Document 13
submitted by New Jersey is included in
the New Jersey SIP submission.
Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires
the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and
modified stationary sources in an area,
and CAA section 172(c)(5) requires
source permits for the construction and
operation of new and modified major
stationary sources anywhere in the
nonattainment area. EPA has
determined that, since the PSD
requirements will apply after
redesignation, areas being redesignated
need not comply with the requirement
that a nonattainment New Source
Review (NSR) program be approved
prior to redesignation, provided that the
area demonstrates maintenance of the
NAAQS without part D NSR. A more
detailed rationale for this view is
described in the memorandum from
Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, dated October 14,
1994 entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source
Review Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.’’
New Jersey has not relied on a part D
NSR program to maintain air quality for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover, because the
NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas
are being redesignated to attainment by
this action, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements will
be applicable to new or modified
sources of PM2.5 in the area.
New Jersey currently implements NSR
in the thirteen nonattainment counties
through the ‘‘transitional’’ NSR
provisions contained in Appendix S of
40 CFR Part 51 and the USEPA policy
memorandum dated July 21, 2011,
concerning interpollutant offsets. The
Federal provisions and policy
memorandum will be superseded once
New Jersey revises its Emission Offset
Rule N.J.A.C. 7:27–18.
New Jersey does not have its own
promulgated regulations as part of the
SIP for part C Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) rules. New Jersey is
appropriately implementing the PSD
program through the delegated federal
PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. The
program will become effective in the
NNJ and SNJ areas upon redesignation
to attainment.
Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to
contain control measures necessary to
provide for attainment of the standard.
Because attainment has been reached in
the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas, no additional
control measures are needed to provide
for attainment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to
meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA
believes the New Jersey SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)
applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that
SIPs in nonattainment areas ‘‘shall
provide for the implementation of
specific measures to be undertaken if
the area fails to make reasonable further
progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by
the attainment date applicable under
this part. Such measures shall be
included in the plan revision as
contingency measures to take effect in
any such case without further action by
the State or [EPA].’’ This contingency
measure requirement is inextricably tied
to the reasonable further progress and
attainment demonstration requirements.
Because attainment has been reached for
the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, contingency measures
are not applicable for redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally
supported or funded projects conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine transportation conformity
applies to transportation plans,
programs and projects that are
developed, funded or approved under
Title 23 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act.
The requirement to determine general
conformity applies to all other federally
supported or funded projects. State
transportation conformity SIP revisions
must be consistent with Federal
transportation conformity regulations
relating to consultation, enforcement
and enforceability that EPA
promulgated pursuant to its authority
under the CAA 12.
EPA interprets the conformity 13 SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under section 107(d) because
state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and Federal
conformity rules apply where state rules
have not been approved. See Wall v.
EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)
(upholding this interpretation); see also
12 Guidance on transportation conformity SIPs
can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/policy/420b09001.pdf.
13 CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to
submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain
Federal criteria and procedures for determining
transportation conformity. Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from MVEBs that are
established in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38659
60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Tampa, Florida).
C. Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA
requires that for an area to be
redesignated the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under
section 110(k).
Upon final approval of New Jersey’s
2007 attainment year emissions
inventory, EPA will have fully approved
the SIPs for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS under section
110(k) for all requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation.
EPA is proposing to approve the 2007
attainment year emissions inventory
(submitted as part of its maintenance
plan) for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas as meeting the
requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, New Jersey
will have satisfied all applicable
requirements under part D of Title I of
the CAA.
D. The Air Quality Improvement Must
Be Permanent and Enforceable
The improvement in air quality must
be due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP and
applicable Federal air pollution control
regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA proposes to
determine that the air quality
improvement in New Jersey in the NNJ
and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas is
due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, Federal
measures, and other state adopted
measures.
New Jersey’s redesignation
submission cited a number of regulatory
programs that provided for emission
reductions of PM2.5, and PM2.5
precursors NOX, and SO2. New Jersey
also included control measures for
VOCs, which were not considered
quantifiable precursors when the
redesignation request was submitted, as
they expected some PM2.5 benefit from
the implementation of VOC control
measures.
The regulatory control measures for
PM2.5, and PM2.5 precursors VOCs, NOX,
and SO2, included in New Jersey’s
redesignation submission have been
adopted into the SIP, which provided
for emission reductions from 2002 to
2009, the year modeled for the
attainment demonstration for the 1997
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38660
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
PM2.5 NAAQS. New Jersey also included
additional measures that were adopted
by the state, but not yet implemented,
that would provide benefit after 2009.
From 2002 to 2009, statewide emissions
decreased significantly: PM2.5 emissions
decreased by 34 percent, NOX emissions
reductions that New Jersey is relying on
to demonstrate maintenance; discussed
in more detail in section VI.E below.
Additional 2002 to 2009 control
measures that support the SIP but were
not quantified, or are VOC only
measures, are also shown.
have decreased by 39 percent, and SO2
emissions have decreased by 70 percent.
Tables 5A and 5B below, show the
State and Federal control measures,
which provide emission reductions
from 2002 to 2009. The tables also
summarize the maintenance plan
measures with quantifiable emission
TABLE 5A—NEW JERSEY’S 2002–2009 CONTROL MEASURES THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 AND ITS PRECURSORS
IN NEW JERSEY
Targeted pollutants
NOX
PM2.5
SO2
VOC
Maintenance plan
measure
X
....................
....................
X
X
NJAC 7:27–15.
X
X
....................
X
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
NJAC 7:27–30.
NA.
X
X
X
X
X
X
....................
X
X
X
NA.
NA.
X
....................
....................
....................
X
NJAC 7:27–27.19.
X
....................
....................
X
....................
NJAC 7:27–16, 19.
X
X
....................
X
....................
X
....................
X
....................
X
NJAC 7:27–19.28.
NJAC 7:27–29.
X
X
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
X
....................
NJAC
NJAC
NJAC
NJAC
7:27–19.13.
7:27–19.9.
7:27–19.7.
7:27–19.29.
7:27–16.
7:27–23.
7:27–24.
7:27–16.
7:27–16.
7:27–24.
7:27–27.
7:27–32, 14.
7:27–24.
7:27–26.
7:27–16.19.
7:27–16.7.
Measure
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (IM) Program.
NOX Budget Program (SIP Call) .....................
Electric Generating Unit (EGU)—BL England
Administrative Consent Order (ACO).
EGUP–SEG—Consent Decree ........................
Refinery Consent Decree (Sunoco, Valero,
ConocoPhillips).
Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers
(ICI) Boilers, Turbines and Engines 2005.
Case by Case NOX and VOC (Facility Specific Emission Limits or FSELs/Administrative Emission Limits or AELs).
Sewage and Sludge Incinerators .....................
New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program.
Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) ....
Asphalt Production Plants ................................
ICI Boilers 2009 ...............................................
EGU-High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) ........
Affected State rules
Additional New Jersey Measures That Support the SIP
Stage I and II (Gasoline Transfer Operations).
Architectural Coatings 2005 .............................
Consumer Products 2005 ................................
Mobile Equipment Refinishing (Auto body) .....
Solvent Cleaning ..............................................
Portable Fuel Containers 2005 ........................
Mercury Rule ....................................................
Diesel Vehicle Retrofit Program ......................
Consumer Products 2009 ................................
Adhesives & Sealants ......................................
Asphalt Paving (cutback and emulsified) ........
Control Technology Guideline (CTG) Group 1:
Printing.
Portable Fuel Containers 2009 ........................
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) ..
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Energy Master Plan .........................................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
X
X
X
X
X
....................
....................
X
X
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
NJAC
NJAC
NJAC
NJAC
NJAC
NJAC
NJAC
NJAC
NJAC
NJAC
NJAC
NJAC
....................
X
X
X
....................
X
X
X
....................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
NJAC 7:27–24.
NJAC 7:27–8.
NA.
NA.
TABLE 5B—FEDERAL 2002–2009 CONTROL MEASURES THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 AND ITS PRECURSORS IN
NEW JERSEY
Targeted pollutants
NOX
PM2.5
SO2
VOC
Maintenance plan
measure
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
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Measure
Residential Woodstove NSPS .................................................................
Motor Vehicle Control Program (Tier 1 and Tier 2) ................................
Acid Rain Program ...................................................................................
Nonroad Diesel Engine Standards ..........................................................
Phase 2 Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Nonhandheld Engines at or below 19 kW (lawn and garden) ........................................
Phase 2 Standards for Small Spark-Ignition Handheld Engines at or
below 19 kW (lawn and garden) ..........................................................
Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Defeat Device Settlement ..............
Gasoline Boats and Personal Watercraft, Outboard Engines .................
National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV) ...................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38661
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5B—FEDERAL 2002–2009 CONTROL MEASURES THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 AND ITS PRECURSORS IN
NEW JERSEY—Continued
Targeted pollutants
NOX
PM2.5
SO2
VOC
Maintenance plan
measure
X
....................
....................
....................
X
X
X
....................
X
X
X
....................
....................
X
X
X
....................
....................
X
X
X
X
....................
X
X
....................
....................
....................
X
X
Measure
Large Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines over 19 kW (>50 hp) Tier 1
and Tier 2 .............................................................................................
Heavy-Duty Highway Rule—Vehicle Standards and Diesel Fuel Sulfur
Control ..................................................................................................
Diesel Marine Engines over 37 kW Category 1 Tier 2, Category 2 Tier
2, Category 3 Tier 1 .............................................................................
Recreational Vehicles (includes snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles,
and all-terrain vehicles) ........................................................................
Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less
Than 30 Liters per Cylinder Tier 2 and Tier 3 .....................................
USEPA Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards
including Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT ................................
Tables 6A and 6B show additional
post 2009 maintenance plan measures
with creditable emission reductions,
including measures that have been
adopted but not yet implemented, that
New Jersey is relying on to demonstrate
maintenance; discussed in more detail
in section VI.E below. New Jersey’s
submittal also included additional
measures to provide additional
assurance that the improvement in New
Jersey’s air quality will continue to
improve.
TABLE 6A—NEW JERSEY’S POST 2009 CONTROL MEASURES THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 AND ITS PRECURSORS
IN NEW JERSEY
Targeted pollutants
NOX
PM2.5
SO2
VOC
Maintenance plan
measure
Vehicle IM Program Revisions ........................
Glass Manufacturing ........................................
EGU—Coal, Oil, and Gas Fired Boilers ..........
X
X
X
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
X
X
....................
....................
X
X
X
Low Sulfur Distillate and Residual Fuel Strategies.
X
....................
X
....................
X
Measure
Affected State rules
NJAC 7:27–15.
NJAC 7:27–19.10.
NJAC 7:27–4.2, 10.2,
19.4.
NJAC 7:27–9, 7:27–
27.9.
TABLE 6B—FEDERAL POST 2009 CONTROL MEASURES THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 AND ITS PRECURSORS IN
NEW JERSEY
Targeted pollutants
NOX
PM2.5
SO2
VOC
Maintenance plan
measure
X
X
....................
....................
X
Measure
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines MACT ................................
New Jersey also presented data to
demonstrate that the decline in PM2.5
concentrations was due primarily to
permanent and enforceable control
measures rather than the country’s
economic recession that began in 2007
and resulting downturn in energy use.
Although electricity generation in
New Jersey decreased by one percent
from 2007 to 2009, electricity generation
in New Jersey has experienced an
overall increase of 5 percent from 2002
to 2011. In contrast, emission reductions
have outpaced generation changes with
decreases of 93, 84 and 72 percent for
SO2, NOX and PM2.5, respectively, from
2000–2011, with significant emission
reductions occurring prior to 2007.
From 2007 to 2009, emission reductions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:31 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
for SO2, NOX and PM2.5 show decreases
of 65, 51, and 46 percent, respectively.
New Jersey also examined the onroad
mobile sector to determine if statewide
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data
declined and whether it was significant
enough to affect air quality compared to
emission reductions from ‘‘fleet
turnover’’. ‘‘Fleet turnover’’ refers to the
replacement of older, more polluting
vehicles with newer vehicles that emit
pollutants at lower levels as a result of
the Federal ‘‘Tier 2’’ new vehicle
emission standards (began with the
2004 model year), and further
augmented by the California Low
Emission Vehicle (LEV)II new vehicle
emission standards (began with the
2009 model year in New Jersey).
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Based on yearly statewide data, VMT
declined approximately 3.7 percent in
2008 and 0.5 percent in 2009 after
steady annual VMT increases of about
two percent between 1996 and 2006.
Between 2007 and 2009, emissions of
PM2.5 decreased by 23 percent, and NOX
by 24 percent. An evaluation of onroad
emissions data from 2002 to 2009 shows
New Jersey emissions of PM2.5
decreasing by approximately 39 percent
and emissions of NOX decreasing by
approximately 50 percent, even though
VMT increased by 4.5 to 6 percent. This
suggests that fleet turnover, rather than
changes in VMT, had a much greater
impact on onroad emissions.
New Jersey has demonstrated that
actual enforceable emission reductions
are responsible for the air quality
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38662
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
improvement. EPA proposes to find that
the combination of existing EPAapproved SIP and Federal measures
contribute to the permanence and
enforceability of reduction in ambient
PM2.5 levels that have allowed New
Jersey to attain the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. The Area Must Have a Fully
Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the area has a
fully approved maintenance plan
pursuant to section 175A of the CAA
(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In
conjunction with its request to
redesignate the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas to attainment for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, New Jersey
submitted a SIP revision to provide for
maintenance for at least 10 years after
the effective date of redesignation to
attainment. EPA believes this
maintenance plan meets the
requirements for approval under section
175A of the CAA.
1. What is required in a maintenance
plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after the Administrator approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years
after the redesignation, the State must
submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year
period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future PM2.5 violations. The
Calcagni Memorandum, dated
September 4, 1992, provides further
guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan, explaining that a
maintenance plan should address five
requirements: (1) An attainment
emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for
10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain
the existing monitoring network; (4)
verification of continued attainment;
and (5) a contingency plan to prevent or
correct future violations. As is discussed
more fully below, EPA proposes to find
that the New Jersey maintenance plan
includes all the necessary components
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
and is thus proposing to approve it as
a revision to the New Jersey SIP.
2. Analysis of the Maintenance Plan
The maintenance demonstration must
demonstrate effective safeguards of the
NAAQS for at least 10 years following
the redesignation showing that future
PM2.5 and precursor emissions will not
exceed the level of the attainment year.
States are required to submit the
following inventory elements to satisfy
the redesignation/maintenance plan
inventory requirements:
Maintenance Plan Attainment
Inventory. Maintenance plan provisions
include a comprehensive, accurate, and
current emissions inventory from all
point, area, nonroad and onroad mobile
sources for the PM2.5 nonattainment
area. States are required to develop an
attainment inventory to identify the
level of emissions in the area that is
sufficient to attain the NAAQS. This
inventory should include the emissions
during the time period associated with
the monitoring data showing
attainment.
Maintenance Plan Interim Year
Inventory. At a minimum, emissions
should be projected to a midpoint year
between the attainment year and the
endpoint/10-year inventory. This
inventory provides a summary of
controlled emissions for point, area,
nonroad and onroad mobile sources for
the PM2.5 nonattainment area for the
interim year inventory.
Maintenance Plan Projected Final
Year Inventory. Emissions should be
projected from the attainment year to at
least 10 years into the future. This
inventory provides a summary of
controlled emissions for point, area,
nonroad and onroad mobile sources at
the endpoint/10-year period.
For the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas, 2007 emissions
were projected to 2017 and 2025. New
Jersey must demonstrate, with the
control programs identified in this SIP,
that total 2017 or 2025 projected
emissions do not exceed the 2007
emission levels.
Below are EPA’s review and
evaluation of the maintenance
demonstration for the two areas.
Additional detail is provided in the
TSD.
(a) Attainment Emissions Inventory
Selection of 2007 Base Year as the
Maintenance Plan Attainment Year.
Inventory An attainment inventory is
comprised of the emissions during the
time period associated with the
monitoring data showing attainment.
New Jersey selected 2007 as the
attainment inventory year for the SNJ
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and NNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standards.
For the 1997 PM2.5 annual standard,
the NNJ nonattainment area had
monitored attainment based on air
monitoring data for 2007–2009; and the
SNJ nonattainment area had monitored
attainment based on air monitoring data
for 2007–2009, and 2008–2010.
Additionally, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard, the NNJ PM2.5 nonattainment
area had monitored attainment for
2007–2009, and 2008–1010; and the SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment area had
monitored attainment for 2008–2010,
and 2009–2011.
Historically for the attainment
inventory, the state would select an
attainment year inventory characterizing
emissions in the maintenance area from
one of the three years in the three-year
period in which the state monitored
attainment. For the SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment area, New Jersey should
have selected 2008 or 2009 as the
attainment year inventory for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 standard. However, the
state believes that the 2007 inventory is
an appropriate and representative
inventory to use as a surrogate
attainment inventory for the 2008
inventory for the SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard for several reasons
discussed:
• The 2007 inventory is the most
comprehensive inventory developed by
states in the region for SIP purposes.
• For all of the available data, the
monitors in the SNJ nonattainment area
showed compliance with the 2006 24hour PM2.5 standard of 35 mg/m3 during
the 2007–2009 monitoring period.
However, there was some incomplete
data for 2007 in the SNJ area that was
not able to be addressed through data
substitution and statistical analysis.
Incomplete data also existed for the
2008–2010 monitoring period, but was
able to be addressed through data
substitution and statistical analysis.14
• The monitors in the NNJ PM2.5
nonattainment area showed compliance
with the 35 mg/m3 daily standard during
the 2007–2009 monitoring period.
• The 2007 and 2008 emission
inventories are comparable, as
demonstrated by a comparison of New
Jersey’s 2007 inventory with USEPA’s
2008 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI).
14 See TSD in EPA Docket ID Number EPA–R03–
OAR–2012–0371 at wwww.regulations.gov for
discussion of EPA’s procedure for addressing
missing data not meeting completeness
requirements for monitors in the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment area for the 2006 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38663
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
• Most important, comparison of the
2008 to the 2017 and 2025 inventories,
shows that emissions will continue to
decrease and will be well below the
2007 and 2008 levels for PM2.5 and its
precursors, NOX, and SO2, in the SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment area.
For these reasons, the state selected
the 2007 inventory as a surrogate for the
2008 inventory. EPA proposes to concur
that the 2007 base year emissions
inventory is appropriate as the
attainment year inventory for the PM2.5
redesignation maintenance plan.
Criteria for Approval of the
Maintenance Plan Attainment Year
Inventory. There are general and
specific components of an acceptable
emission inventory. In general, the State
must submit a revision to its SIP and the
emission inventory must meet the
minimum requirements for reporting by
source category.
For a base year emission inventory to
be acceptable it must pass all of the
following acceptance criteria:
1. Evidence that the inventory was
quality assured by the state and its
implementation documented.
2. The point source inventory must be
complete.
3. Point source emissions must have
been prepared or calculated according
to the current EPA guidance.
4. The area source inventory must be
complete.
5. The area source emissions must
have been prepared or calculated
according to the current EPA guidance.
6. Non-road mobile emissions were
prepared according to current EPA
guidance for all of the source categories.
7. The method (e.g., Highway
Performance Monitoring System or a
network transportation planning model)
used to develop VMT estimates must
follow EPA guidance. The VMT
development methods must be
adequately described and documented
in the inventory report.
8. The Motor Vehicle Emission
Simulator (MOVES) model must be
correctly used to produce emission
factors for each of the vehicle classes.
EPA’s Evaluation of the Maintenance
Plan Attainment Year Inventory
Quality Assurance Plan Implementation
The Quality Assurance (QA) plan was
implemented for all portions of the
inventory. QA checks were performed
relative to data collection and analysis,
and double counting of emissions from
point, area and mobile sources. QA/QC
checks were conducted to ensure
accuracy of units, unit conversions,
transposition of figures, and
calculations.
Point and Area Source Inventories
New Jersey’s inventory includes major
point sources based on specific
thresholds for each pollutant in tons per
year (tpy). The inventory report
describes how point and area source
activity levels and their associated
parameters were developed, and how
the data were used to calculate emission
estimates. The inventory lists the source
categories that are included in (and
excluded from) the area source
inventory. The report provides
referenced documents for activity level
and emission factors used. Information
on how control efficiencies were
derived (with the associated sample
calculations) is also provided. Point and
area source summary information on
detailed county and/or nonattainment
area levels, are included in the
inventory. Where applicable, annual
emissions are provided for PM2.5, NOx,
SO2, VOC and NH3 for the PM2.5
nonattainment areas.
The primary sources of anthropogenic
NH3 emissions are two agricultural
operations, livestock and fertilizer. NH3
emissions from livestock and fertilizer
were prepared by the USEPA using the
Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)
Ammonia Model, version 6. The model
runs are based on 2007 activity levels.
NH3 emissions for industrial
refrigeration, composting, and publicly
owned treatment works were prepared
by the USEPA.
Nonroad Mobile Source Inventory
For New Jersey, the predominant nonroad mobile source categories (i.e.,
agricultural equipment, construction
equipment, industrial equipment,
airport service equipment, light
commercial equipment, lawn and
garden equipment,etc.) were developed
by the Nonroad Emissions Equipment
Model 2008 released by EPA’s Office of
Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ).
Nonroad mobile source emissions are
presented on a source category, county
and/or nonattainment area basis. Where
applicable, annual emissions are
provided for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and
NH3 for the PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Aircraft, Locomotive and Commercial
Marine Vessel Inventories
Where applicable, aircraft,
locomotive, and commercial marine
vessel emissions on a county and/or
nonattainment area basis are provided
for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and NH3.
Activity level and emissions data for
each source category is provided.
Aircraft, locomotive and commercial
marine vessel source emissions are
presented on a source category, county
and/or nonattainment area basis. Where
applicable, annual emissions are
provided for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and
NH3 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Onroad Mobile Source Inventory
New Jersey’s mobile source inventory
was developed by using the travel
demand model (TDM) used by the two
Metropolitan Planning Organizations in
the States as the basis for estimating
actual county level and functional class
VMT estimates. Estimates were
developed from the aforementioned
sources for each roadway functional
class, by county, in each of the PM2.5
nonattainment areas. MOVES2010a
Model was used to generate emission
factors for on-road vehicle emission
estimates. It provides the sources for the
key inputs into the mobile source
emissions model. Key assumptions are
also included. Where applicable, PM2.5,
NOX, SO2, VOC and NH3 mobile
emissions are presented on county and/
or nonattainment area basis. Where
applicable, annual emissions are
provided for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and
NH3 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Tables 7A and 7B below show the
2007 base year PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC
and NH3 annual emission inventories
for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas.
TABLE 7A—2007 NNJ AREA BASE YEAR INVENTORY
[In tons/year]
Pollutant
Point
PM 2.5 ...........
NOX ..............
SOX ..............
VOC .............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Area
4,937
15,828
20,360
7,584
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Nonroad mobile
5,498
16,122
4,983
60,560
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Onroad mobile
2,497
39.457
5,761
26,833
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
3,677
93,385
586
47,490
27JNP1
Total
16,610
164,793
31,690
142,667
38664
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7A—2007 NNJ AREA BASE YEAR INVENTORY—Continued
[In tons/year]
Pollutant
Point
NH3 ..............
Area
804
Nonroad mobile
2,909
Onroad mobile
37
Total
2,101
5,840
TABLE 7B—2007 SNJ AREA BASE YEAR INVENTORY
[In tons/year]
Pollutant
Point
PM 2.5 ...........
NOX ..............
SOX ..............
VOC .............
NH3 ..............
Area
800
4,453
2,034
2,041
53
2,837
3,483
1,128
17,184
1,032
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA is proposing to approve the 2007
base year inventory for PM2.5, NOX, SO2,
VOC and NH3 for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas. The 2007
Maintenance Plan Attainment Year/Base
Year emissions inventory is
comprehensive, accurate, and current
for all sources of relevant pollutants in
the nonattainment area. In all cases the
2007 attainment/base year inventory
was done in accordance with EPA
guidance. The technical support
document provides additional
information regarding the review
conducted by EPA for the 2007 PM2.5
base year inventory.
(b) 2017 Interim and 2025 End Year
Projection Inventories
Criteria for Approval of the 2017
Interim and 2025 Projection End Year
Inventories. There are general and
specific components for acceptable 2017
Maintenance Plan Interim and 2025 End
Year Projection Inventories. In general,
the State must submit a revision to its
SIP and the aforementioned components
must meet certain minimum
requirements for reporting by source
category.
For the projection inventories to be
acceptable they must pass the following
acceptance criteria: 15
1. Were the 2017 and 2025 projection
inventories developed in accordance
with the procedures outlined in EPA’s
latest guidance?
2. Were the Plans developed in
accordance with EPA’s latest guidance
for Growth Factors, Projections, and
Control Strategies for Reasonable
Progress Goal Plans?
EPA’s Evaluation of the Maintenance
Plan 2017 Interim and 2025 End Year
Projection Inventories. A projection of
2007 PM2.5, NOX, and SO2
15 Emission Inventory Improvement Program
guidance document titled Volume X, Emission
Projections, dated December 1999
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Nonroad mobile
560
6,790
1,642
6,490
12
anthropogenic emissions to 2017 and
2025 is required to determine the
emission reductions needed for
inventory maintenance plan. The 2017
and 2025 projection year emission
inventories are calculated by
multiplying the 2007 base year
inventory by factors which estimate
growth from 2007 to 2017 and 2025. A
specific growth factor for each source
type in the inventory is required since
sources typically grow at different rates.
Major Point Sources
Electric Generating Units (EGU) and
Non-Electric Generating Units (NonEGUs)
For the major point source category,
the projected emissions inventories
were first calculated by estimating
growth in each source category. As
appropriate, the 2007 emissions
inventory was used as the base for
applying factors to account for
inventory growth. The point source
inventory was grown from the 2007
inventory to 2017 and 2025 for each
facility using growth factors utilized in
New Jersey’s Emissions Statement
Program, US Department of Energy’s
(USDOE) Annual Energy Outlook
projections, and NJ Department of Labor
statistics.
Area Sources
For the area source category, New
Jersey projected emissions from 2007 to
2017 and 2025 using growth factors
generated from USDOE 2011 Annual
Energy Outlook, and state-supplied
population and employment data,
where appropriate.
Non-Road Mobile Sources
Nonroad Vehicle Equipment Emissions
Non-road vehicle equipment
emissions were projected from 2007 to
2017 and 2025 using the EPA’s
NONROAD 2008a model (July 2009
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Onroad mobile
Sfmt 4702
1,055
26,992
161
10,880
462
Total
5,159
41,718
4,965
36,594
1,559
version). This model was used to
calculate past and future emission
inventories for all nonroad equipment
categories except commercial marine
vessels, locomotives and aircrafts.
Emissions were determined on a
monthly basis and combined to provide
annual emission estimates.
Aircrafts, Locomotives and Commercial
Marine Vessels (CMV)
Aircraft emissions were projected
from 2007 to 2017 and 2025 based on
landing and takeoff growth factors from
the Federal Aviation Administration
Terminal Area Forecast System for
2009–2030.
Locomotives emissions were
projected from 2007 to 2017 and 2025
based on combined growth and control
factors from EPA’s regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) in May 2008 for control
of locomotive engines and USDOE’s
2006 Annual Energy Outlook report.
CMV emissions were projected to
2017 and 2025 using EPA’s May 2008
RIA report, for category 1 and 2 vessels
and EPA’s 2009 RIA report for category
3 vessels based on combined growth
and control factors.
Onroad Mobile Sources
For the onroad mobile source
category, the primary indicator and tool
for developing on-road mobile growth
and expected emissions are VMT and
US EPA’s mobile emissions model
MOVES2010a. Projection years 2017
and 2025 pollutant emission factors
were generated by MOVES2010a (with
the associated controlled measures
applied, where appropriate) and applied
to the monthly VMT projections
provided by the State. Monthly
emissions were then combined to
develop annual emission estimates.
Tables 8A–8C and 9A–9C, show the
2017 and 2025 projection emission
inventories controlled after 2007 using
the aforementioned growth indicators/
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
38665
methodologies for the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, respectively.
TABLE 8A—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE NNJ
AREA
PM2.5
Sector
2007
2017
2025
Net change
2008–2025
Point .................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................................................................
On-road ............................................................................................................
4,937
5,498
2,497
3,677
3,131
5,436
1,725
1,874
3,243
5,616
1,410
1,218
........................
........................
........................
........................
Total ..........................................................................................................
16,610
12,227
11,487
¥5,123
TABLE 8B—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 NOX EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE NNJ
AREA
NOX
Sector
2007
2017
2025
Net change
2008–2025
Point .................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................................................................
On-road ............................................................................................................
15,828
16,122
39,457
93,385
13,512
15,969
27,050
45,687
4,126
3,429
4,998
13,504
........................
........................
........................
........................
Total ..........................................................................................................
164,793
102,218
26,057
¥138,736
TABLE 8C—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 SO2 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE NNJ
AREA
SO2
Sector
2007
2017
2025
Net change
2008–2025
Point .................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................................................................
On-road ............................................................................................................
20,360
4,983
5,761
586
3,583
452
719
531
1,245
102
105
129
........................
........................
........................
........................
Total ..........................................................................................................
31,690
5,295
1,579
¥30,111
TABLE 9A—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE SNJ
AREA
PM2.5
Sector
2007
2017
2025
Net change
2008–2025
800
2,837
560
1,055
818
2,243
372
616
858
2,651
315
278
........................
........................
........................
........................
Total ..........................................................................................................
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................................................................
On-road ............................................................................................................
5,159
4,549
4,102
¥1,057
TABLE 9B—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 NOx EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE SNJ
AREA
NOX
Sector
2007
Point .................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2017
4,453
3,483
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
4,126
3,429
27JNP1
2025
4,433
3,427
Net change
2008–2025
........................
........................
38666
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9B—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 NOx EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE SNJ
AREA—Continued
NOX
Sector
2007
2017
Net change
2008–2025
2025
Nonroad ...........................................................................................................
On-road ............................................................................................................
6,790
26,992
4,998
13,504
3,915
6,095
........................
........................
Total ..........................................................................................................
41,718
26,057
17,870
¥23,848
TABLE 9C—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017 AND 2025 SO2 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE SNJ
AREA
SO2
Sector
2007
2017
Net change
2008–2025
2025
2,034
1,128
1,642
161
1,245
102
105
129
1,355
260
141
161
........................
........................
........................
........................
Total ..........................................................................................................
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................................................................
On-road ............................................................................................................
4,965
1,579
1,880
¥3,085
The permanent and enforceable
control measures that are relied on to
provide continued attainment or
maintenance of the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are listed as
maintenance plan measures in tables 5
(A thru B) and 6 (A thru B). New Jersey
has already implemented, or adopted
these control measures, some with
future implementation dates. Additional
information regarding the control
measures can be found in the TSD. EPA
is proposing to approve the 2017
interim and 2025 projection inventories
for PM2.5, NOX and SO2 for the NNJ and
SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas. In all
cases the 2017 and 2025 projection year
inventories were performed in
accordance with EPA guidance. For
further information concerning EPA’s
evaluation and analysis of the emission
inventories, see the TSD available in the
docket.
Tables 8A–9C above show the
inventories for the 2007 attainment year,
the 2017 interim year, and the 2025
endpoint year for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas. Table 8A–9C show
that between 2007 and 2017, the NNJ
and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas, are
projected to reduce SO2, NOX and PM2.5
emissions substantially. Between 2007
and 2025, the NNJ and SNJ areas are
projected to reduce emissions well
below the 2007 attainment inventory
emission levels for all three pollutants.
Thus, the projected emissions
inventories show that the NNJ and SNJ
areas will continue to maintain the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
during the 10 year maintenance period.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Maintenance Demonstration Thru 2025
As noted in section VI.E.1, CAA
section 175A requires a state seeking
redesignation to attainment to submit a
SIP revision to provide for the
maintenance of the NAAQS in the area
‘‘for at least 10 years after the
redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this
as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a
period of 10 years following
redesignation.’’ See Calcagni
Memorandum. Where the emissions
inventory method of showing
maintenance is used, its purpose is to
show that emissions during the
maintenance period will not increase
over the attainment year inventory. See
Calcagni Memorandum.
As discussed in detail above, the
State’s maintenance plan submission
expressly documents that the NNJ and
SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas’
emissions inventories will remain below
the attainment year inventories through
at least 2025. In addition, for the reasons
set forth below, EPA proposes to
determine that the State’s submission
further demonstrates that the NNJ and
SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas will
continue to maintain the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at least
through 2025:
• As explained in the previous
section, levels of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5
are projected to decrease substantially
between 2007 and 2025. EPA believes
that it is highly improbable that sudden
increases would occur that could exceed
the attainment year inventory levels in
2025.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Air quality concentrations for PM2.5
are 1 to 2 mg/m3 or more under the
NAAQS level, indicating a margin of
safety in the event of any emissions
increase. As shown in tables 1 and 2, for
the 1997 annual NAAQS of 15 mg/m3,
the design value for 2009–2011 for the
NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area
value was 11.7 mg/m3; and the design
value for 2009–2011 for the PA-NJ-DE
PM2.5 nonattainment area was measured
at 13.7 mg/m3. As shown in tables 3 and
4, for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/
m3, the design value for 2009–2011 for
the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area
was 30 mg/m3; and the design value for
2009–2011 for the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5
nonattainment area was measured at 33
mg/m3.
• Air quality concentrations showed a
significant downward trend over time
for both the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE
PM2.5 nonattainment areas for both the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See
figures 3 thru 6 of the New Jersey
redesignation request, which is
available in the docket.
• Additional emissions reductions
will occur now, and in the future, from
EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS) 16, New Jersey’s
Diesel Retrofit Program, NJDEP’s
amended Administrative Consent Order
with B.L. England, and from New
Jersey’s Clean Construction Program.
See the TSD for more information
regarding these measures, including
expected emission reductions.
16 77
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
FR 9304 (February 16, 2012).
27JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(c) Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of
Precursors
With regard to the redesignation of
NNJ and SNJ areas, in evaluating the
effect of the D.C. Circuit’s remand of
EPA’s implementation rule, which
included presumptions against
consideration of VOC and NH3 as PM2.5
precursors, in this proposal EPA is also
considering the impact of the decision
on the maintenance plan required under
sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To
begin with, EPA notes that the area has
attained the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
standards and that the state, as shown
below, has shown that attainment of
that standard is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions.
EPA proposes to determine that the
State’s maintenance plan shows
continued maintenance of the 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by
tracking the levels of the precursors
whose control brought about attainment
of the standards in the NNJ and SNJ
nonattainment areas. EPA therefore
determines that the additional
consideration related to the
maintenance plan requirements that
results from the Court’s January 4, 2013
decision is that of assessing the
potential role of VOC and NH3 in
demonstrating continued maintenance
in this area. As explained below, based
upon documentation provided by the
State and supporting information, EPA
believes that the maintenance plan for
the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas
need not include any additional
emission reductions of VOC or NH3 in
order to provide for continued
maintenance of the standard.
First, as noted above in EPA’s
discussion of section 189(e), VOC
emission levels in this area have
historically been well-controlled under
SIP requirements related to ozone and
other pollutants. Second, total NH3
emissions for the NNJ and SNJ area are
very low, estimated to be less than 6,000
and 1,600 tons per year, respectively.
See Tables 7A and 7B. This amount of
NH3 emissions appears especially small
in comparison to the total amounts of
SO2, NOX, and even PM2.5 emissions
from sources in the areas. Third, as
described below, available information
shows that no precursor, including VOC
and NH3, is expected to increase over
the maintenance period so as to
interfere with or undermine the State’s
maintenance demonstration.
NNJ and SNJ areas’ maintenance
plans show that emissions of direct
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX are projected to
decrease substantially over the
maintenance period. See Tables 8A–9C.
In addition, emissions inventories used
in the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
show that VOC and NH3 emissions for
the NNJ and SNJ areas are projected to
38667
decrease substantially from 2007
through 2020. See Tables 10A and 10B
below. While the RIA emissions
inventories are only projected out to
2020, there is no reason to believe that
this downward trend would not
continue through 2025. Given that the
NNJ and SNJ areas are already attaining
the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
with the current level of emissions from
sources in the area, the downward trend
of emissions inventories would be
consistent with continued attainment.
Indeed, projected emissions reductions
for the precursors that the State is
addressing for purposes of the 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS indicate
that the areas should continue to attain
the NAAQS following the precursor
control strategy that the state has
already elected to pursue. Even if VOC
and NH3 emissions were to increase
unexpectedly between 2020 and 2025,
the overall emissions reductions
projected in direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX
would be sufficient to offset any
increases. For these reasons, EPA
proposes to determine that local
emissions of all of the potential PM2.5
precursors will not increase to the
extent that they will cause monitored
PM2.5 levels to violate the 1997 PM2.5
and 2006 PM2.5 standards during the
maintenance period.
TABLE 10A—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND NH3 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE
NNJ AREA 17
VOC
NH3
Sector
2007
Net change
2007–2020
2020
2007
2020
Net change
2007–2020
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
Nonroad ...................................................
On-road ....................................................
7,150
59,925
29,203
44,389
7,508
60,657
16,613
15,285
........................
........................
........................
........................
852
2,810
28
2,433
1,301
2,872
34
1,243
........................
........................
........................
........................
Total ..................................................
140,667
100,063
¥40,604
6,123
5,450
¥703
TABLE 10B—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND NH3 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE
SNJ AREA 18
VOC
NH3
Sector
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2007
Net change
2007–2020
2020
2007
2020
Net change
2007–2020
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
Nonroad ...................................................
On-road ....................................................
1,874
18,140
7,023
9,072
1,837
18,488
3,890
3,295
........................
........................
........................
........................
123
1,075
10
469
159
1,103
12
263
........................
........................
........................
........................
Total ..................................................
36,109
27,150
¥8,959
1,677
1,527
¥150
17 These emissions estimates were taken from the
emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
18 These emissions estimates were taken from the
emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38668
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
In addition, available air quality
modeling analyses show continued
maintenance of the standard during the
maintenance period. The modeling
analysis conducted for the RIA for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the
design value for this area is expected to
continue to decline through 2020. In the
RIA analysis, the 2020 modeled design
value is 10.8 mg/m3 for the NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area, and 9.4 mg/m3 for
the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area. Given
that precursor emissions are projected to
decrease through 2025, it is reasonable
to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels
in this area will also continue to
decrease through 2025.
Thus, EPA proposes to determine that
there is ample justification to conclude
that the NNJ and SNJ areas should be
redesignated, even taking into
consideration the emissions of other
precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5.
After consideration of the D.C. Circuit’s
January 4, 2013 decision, and for the
reasons set forth in this notice, EPA
proposes to approve the State’s
maintenance plan and its request to
redesignate the NNJ and SNJ
nonattainment areas to attainment for
the 1997 PM2.5 annual and the 2006
PM2.5 24-hour standards.
(d) Monitoring Network
New Jersey has committed to tracking
the air quality for continued attainment
of the PM2.5 NAAQS, and will work
with EPA prior to making any changes
to the existing PM2.5 air monitoring
network.
The State is obligated to work with
EPA each year through the air
monitoring network review process, as
required by 40 CFR Part 58 to
determine: (1) The adequacy of the
PM2.5 monitoring network; (2) if
additional monitoring is needed; and (3)
if/when sites can be discontinued or
relocated. Any changes to the
monitoring network, including
replacing or moving monitor(s) to new
locations, as necessary, will be made
through the air monitoring network
review process. This review process
undergoes a public comment period,
and is subject to approval by the EPA.
Air monitoring data will continue to be
quality assured according to
requirements in 40 CFR Part 58.
EPA proposes to conclude that the
State of New Jersey has met the
requirement for continuing to operate an
appropriate air monitoring network.
(e) Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS in the state depends, in part, on
the state’s efforts towards tracking
indicators of continued attainment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
during the maintenance period. New
Jersey’s plan for verifying continued
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS consists
of continued ambient PM2.5 air quality
monitoring in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 58. New
Jersey will also continue to develop and
submit periodic emission inventories as
required by the Federal Consolidated
Emissions Reporting Rule (codified at
40 CFR Part 51, subpart A).
EPA proposes to approve New Jersey’s
plans for verifying continued attainment
of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
(f) Contingency Measures in the
Maintenance Plan
Section 175A of the CAA requires that
a maintenance plan include such
contingency provision as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the state will
promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.
The maintenance plan should identify
the contingency measures to be adopted,
a schedule and procedure for adoption
and implementation of the contingency
measures, and a time limit for action by
the state. The state should also identify
specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be adopted and
implemented. The maintenance plan
must include a requirement that the
state will implement all measures with
respect to control of the pollutant(s) that
were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment.
See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
As required by section 175A of the
CAA, New Jersey has included
contingency provisions in the
maintenance plan to address possible
future annual PM2.5 air quality
problems. New Jersey will use the
following triggers to determine the
cause of elevated levels, and implement
contingency measures, as necessary, in
accordance with the described schedule:
1. If monitored PM2.5 concentrations
in any year exceed the level of the
NAAQS, NJDEP will perform a data
assessment to determine the cause of the
violation. This assessment will be
performed when the annual average
PM2.5 concentration for the previous
year exceeds 15 mg/m3 at any New
Jersey monitoring site, or when the 98th
percentile of the 24-hour average daily
concentrations exceeds 35 mg/m3 at any
New Jersey air monitoring site. NJDEP
will perform this evaluation within six
months of the data certification. New
Jersey will work with the other states in
its shared multi-state nonattainment
areas as necessary.
2. If annual or 24-hour PM2.5 design
values exceed 15 mg/m3 or 35 mg/m3,
respectively, NJDEP will evaluate all
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
appropriate data to determine the cause
using the same analyses discussed in
Item number 1. NJDEP will perform this
evaluation within six months of the
determination of a violation.
3. Based on any findings, New Jersey
will make a judgment on whether the
violation was caused by an exceptional
event or a violation of an existing rule
or permit. The State will rely on one or
more of the following contingency
measures for any other violation:
—Onroad Vehicle Fleet Turnover
—Nonroad Vehicle and Equipment Fleet
Turnover
—Low Sulfur Fuel Rule N.J.A.C. 7:27–
9 (prior to July 2016)
—Diesel Retrofit Program, Diesel
Inspection and Maintenance Program,
N.J.A.C. 7:27–14 and 32
4. If necessary, New Jersey will
evaluate the feasibility and applicability
of additional measures, how they relate
to the cause and location of the
violation, and if these additional
measures would correct the violation.
These may include:
—New control measures that have been
adopted for other purposes
—Residential wood burning strategies
—Fugitive dust reductions at stationary
sources
—Lower particulate limits for No. 6 fuel
oil-fired boilers
—Lower particulate limits for stationary
diesel engines
—Working with the local metropolitan
planning agencies to implement
transportation control measures
NJDEP will perform this evaluation
within six months of the determination
of a violation. If it is determined that a
new rule is required or appropriate to
correct a violation of the NAAQS,
NJDEP will propose a new rule within
18 month, and take final action within
30 months, of the determination of a
violation.
New Jersey is relying on existing
measures, which are already
implemented, or have been adopted
with future implementation dates, to
promptly correct any violation of the
NAAQS. The state has also included a
commitment to further evaluate
additional measures, if necessary and
appropriate. EPA proposes to find that
the New Jersey maintenance plan
includes appropriate contingency
measures to promptly correct any
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation.
Maintenance Plan Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above,
EPA is proposing to approve New
Jersey’s 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the NNJ and
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38669
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SNJ areas as meeting the requirements
of section 175A of the CAA.
because exceedences of the standard
were not isolated to one particular
season; therefore, the budgets
VII. What is EPA’s analysis of New
established by this maintenance plan
Jersey’s proposed NOX and PM2.5 motor
will be used by transportation agencies
vehicle emission budgets?
to meet conformity requirements for
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new both the annual and daily standards.
transportation plans, programs, and
New Jersey developed these MVEBs,
projects, such as the construction of
as required, for the last year of its
new highways, must ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e.,
maintenance plan, 2025, and an
be consistent with) the part of the state’s additional year, 2009, for the purpose of
air quality plan that addresses pollution establishing budgets for the near-term
from cars and trucks. Conformity to the
based on EPA’s MOVES model.
SIP means that transportation activities
Previously established and approved
will not cause new air quality
MVEBs had been based on MOBILE6.2.
violations, worsen existing violations, or
The 2009 MVEB was developed
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS
without an accompanying full emissions
or any interim milestones. If a
inventory. EPA proposes to approve this
transportation plan does not conform,
approach that is consistent with
most new projects that would expand
attainment and maintenance of both the
the capacity of roadways cannot go
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards because
forward. Regulations at 40 CFR Part 93
of our earlier determinations that both
set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE
procedures for demonstrating and
nonattainment areas had attained the
assuring conformity of such
standards based on monitored air
transportation activities to a SIP. The
quality that included the year 2009 (see
regional emissions analysis is one, but
section II.A.).
The MVEBs for 2025 reflect the total
not the only, requirement for
on-road emissions for 2025, plus an
implementing transportation
allocation from the available NOX and
conformity. Transportation conformity
PM2.5 safety margins. Under 40 CFR
is a requirement for nonattainment and
93.101, the term ‘‘safety margin’’ is the
maintenance areas.
Under the CAA, states are required to difference between the attainment level
submit, at various times, control strategy (from all sources) and the projected
SIPs and maintenance plans for
level of emissions (from all sources) in
nonattainment areas. These control
the maintenance plan. The safety
strategy SIPs (including RFP and
margin can be allocated to the
attainment demonstrations) and
transportation sector; however, the total
maintenance plans create motor vehicle emissions must remain below the
emissions budgets (MVEBs or budgets)
attainment level. New Jersey chose to
for criteria pollutants and/or their
add 8% of the available safety margin to
precursors to address pollution from
both the PM2.5 and NOX budgets for
cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR Part 93, an
2025 for both the NNJ and SNJ
MVEB must be established for the last
nonattainment areas. The NOX and
year of the maintenance plan. A state
PM2.5 MVEBs and safety margin
may adopt MVEBs for other years as
allocations were developed in
well. The MVEB is the portion of the
consultation with the transportation
total allowable emissions in the
partners and were added to
maintenance demonstration that is
accommodate expected future
allocated to highway and transit vehicle improvements to MOVES model inputs
use and emissions. The MVEB serves as and methodologies.
In the submittal, the State has also
a ceiling on emissions from an area’s
established ‘‘sub-area budgets’’ for the
planned transportation system. The
two metropolitan planning
MVEB concept is further explained in
the preamble to the November 24, 1993, organizations (MPO) within the NNJ
nonattainment area: the North Jersey
Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR
Transportation Planning Authority
62188). The preamble also describes
(NJTPA) and the Delaware Valley
how to establish the MVEB in the SIP
Regional Planning Commission
and how to revise the MVEB.
New Jersey has developed MVEBs for (DVRPC). These sub-area budgets allow
both the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment
each MPO to work independently to
areas. The budgets are being established demonstrate conformity by meeting its
for both the 1997 annual and 2006 daily own PM2.5 and NOX budgets. Each MPO
PM2.5 standards. New Jersey determined must still verify, however, that the other
that budgets based on annual emissions MPO currently has a conforming long
of direct PM2.5 and NOX, a precursor, are range transportation plan and
transportation improvement program
appropriate for the 2006 daily standard
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(TIP) prior to making a new plan/TIP
conformity determination. The MVEBs
for both the NNJ and SNJ areas are
defined in Tables 11 (A thru D) below.
TABLE 11A—2009 PM2.5 AND NOX
MVEBS FOR NNJ FOR BOTH THE
1997 ANNUAL AND 2006 DAILY
PM2.5 NAAQS
[Tons/year]
MPO/Subarea
NJTPA ......................
DVRPC (Mercer
County) ..................
Direct
PM2.5
NOX
2,736
67,272
224
5,835
TABLE 11B—2025 PM2.5 AND NOX
MVEBS FOR NNJ FOR BOTH THE
1997 ANNUAL AND 2006 DAILY
PM2.5 NAAQS
[Tons/year]
MPO/Subarea
NJTPA ......................
DVRPC (Mercer
County) ..................
Direct
PM2.5
NOX
1,509
25,437
119
2,551
TABLE 11C—2009 PM2.5 AND NOX
MVEBS FOR SNJ FOR BOTH THE
1997 ANNUAL AND 2006 DAILY
PM2.5 NAAQS
[Tons/year]
Direct
PM2.5
MPO
DVRPC (Burlington,
Camden, and
Gloucester Counties) .......................
680
NOX
18,254
TABLE 11D—2025 PM2.5 AND NOX
MVEBS FOR SNJ FOR BOTH THE
1997 ANNUAL AND 2006 DAILY
PM2.5 NAAQS
[Tons/year]
MPO
DVRPC (Burlington,
Camden, and
Gloucester Counties) .......................
Direct
PM2.5
363
NOX
8,003
As mentioned above, New Jersey has
chosen to allocate a portion of the
available safety margin to the NOX and
PM2.5 MVEBs for 2025. Details of this
allocation are shown in Tables 12 (A
thru D) below.
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38670
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 12A—DIRECT PM2.5 MVEB SAFETY MARGIN ALLOCATION FOR NNJ
[Tons/year]
On-Road
inventory
for 2025
NJTPA ..............................................................................................................................................
DVRPC (Mercer County) .................................................................................................................
Safety
margin
(8% of
total
reduction)
1,128
90
4,766
358
381
29
On-Road
inventory
for 2025
MPO/Subarea
Total
reduction
from all
sources,
2007 to
2025
Total
reduction
from all
sources,
2007 to
2025
Safety
margin
(8% of
total
reduction)
18,626
1,920
85,142
7,881
6,811
630
2025
MVEB
1,509
119
TABLE 12B—NOX MVEB SAFETY MARGIN ALLOCATION FOR NNJ
[Tons/year]
MPO/Subarea
NJTPA ..............................................................................................................................................
DVRPC (Mercer County) .................................................................................................................
2025
MVEB
25,437
2,551
TABLE 12C—DIRECT PM2.5 MVEB SAFETY MARGIN ALLOCATION FOR SNJ
[Tons/year]
On-Road
inventory
for 2025
Safety
margin
(8% of
total
reduction)
278
1,056
85
On-Road
inventory
for 2025
MPO/Subarea
Total
reduction
from all
sources,
2007 to
2025
Total
reduction
from all
sources,
2007 to
2025
Safety
margin
(8% of
total
reduction)
6,095
23,848
1,908
DVRPC (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties) ...............................................................
2025
MVEB
363
TABLE 12D—NOX MVEB SAFETY MARGIN ALLOCATION FOR SNJ
[Tons/year]
MPO/Subarea
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DVRPC (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties) ...............................................................
EPA is proposing to approve the 2009
and 2025 MVEBs for NOX and PM2.5 for
NNJ and SNJ because EPA has
determined that the areas will maintain
both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hr
PM2.5 NAAQS with on-road vehicle
emissions capped at the levels set by the
budgets. EPA’s review thus far indicates
that the budgets meet the adequacy
criteria set forth by 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4),
as follows:
(i) The submitted control strategy
implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan was endorsed by the
Governor (or his or her designee) and
was subject to a State public hearing:
The SIP revision was submitted to EPA
by the Commissioner of the New Jersey
Department of Environmental
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Protection, who is the Governor’s
designee.
(ii) Before the control strategy
implementation plan or maintenance
plan was submitted to EPA,
consultation among Federal, State, and
local agencies occurred; full
implementation plan documentation
was provided to EPA; and EPA’s stated
concerns, if any, were addressed: New
Jersey conducted an interagency
consultation process involving EPA and
USDOT, the New Jersey Department of
Transportation and affected MPOs. All
comments and concerns were addressed
prior to the final submittal.
(iii) The motor vehicle emissions
budget(s) is clearly identified and
precisely quantified: The MVEB was
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2025
MVEB
8,003
clearly identified and quantified and is
reiterated here in Tables 11A–11D.
(iv) The motor vehicle emissions
budget(s), when considered together
with all other emissions sources, is
consistent with applicable requirements
for maintenance: Both the 2009 and
2025 MVEB are less than the on-road
mobile source inventory for 2007 that
was shown to be consistent with
attainment and maintenance of the
standards. In addition, the 2009 budgets
are for a year in which EPA has
determined that New Jersey attained the
applicable air quality standards and are
therefore consistent with maintenance
of the respective standards.
(v) The motor vehicle emissions
budget(s) is consistent with and clearly
related to the emissions inventory and
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the control measures in the submitted
control strategy implementation plan
revision or maintenance plan: The
MVEB were developed from the on-road
mobile source inventories, including all
applicable state and Federal control
measures. Inputs related to inspection
and maintenance and fuels are
consistent with New Jersey’s Federallyapproved control programs.
(vi) Revisions to previously submitted
control strategy implementation plans
or maintenance plans explain and
document any changes to previously
submitted budgets and control
measures; impacts on point and area
source emissions; any changes to
established safety margins (see § 93.101
for definition); and reasons for the
changes (including the basis for any
changes related to emission factors or
estimates of vehicle miles traveled): The
submitted maintenance plan establishes
new 2009 and 2025 budgets to ensure
continued maintenance of the
standards; therefore, this in not
applicable.
Once the budgets are approved or
found adequate (whichever is
completed first), they must be used for
future conformity determinations.
VIII. What is the status of EPA’s
adequacy determination for the
proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for
2009 and 2025 for Northern and
Southern New Jersey?
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing MVEBs, EPA may
affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein adequate for use in determining
transportation conformity. Once EPA
affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB
is adequate for transportation
conformity purposes, that MVEB must
be used by state and Federal agencies in
determining whether proposed
transportation projects conform to the
SIP as required by section 176(c) of the
CAA.
EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining adequacy of a MVEB are set
out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and our
review of New Jersey’s submission in
the context of these criteria was
presented in section VII. The process for
determining adequacy consists of three
basic steps: Public notification of a SIP
submission, a public comment period,
and EPA’s adequacy determination.
This process for determining the
adequacy of submitted MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes was
initially outlined in EPA’s May 14,
1999, guidance, ‘‘Conformity Guidance
on Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.’’ EPA
adopted regulations to codify the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
adequacy process in the Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments for the
‘‘New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing
Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’
on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004).
Additional information on the adequacy
process for transportation conformity
purposes is available in the proposed
rule entitled, ‘‘Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments:
Response to Court Decision and
Additional Rule Changes,’’ 68 FR 38974,
38984 (June 30, 2003).
As discussed earlier, New Jersey’s
maintenance plan submission includes
NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the NNJ and
SNJ maintenance areas for 2009 and
2025. EPA reviewed the NOX and PM2.5
MVEBs through the adequacy process.
The New Jersey SIP submission,
including the NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs,
was open for public comment on EPA’s
adequacy Web site on September 12,
2012, found at: https://www.epa.gov/
otaq/stateresources/transconf/
currsips.htm. The public comment
period closed on October 12, 2012. EPA
did not receive any comments on the
adequacy of the MVEBs, nor did EPA
receive any requests for the SIP
submittal.
EPA intends to make its
determination on the adequacy of the
2009 and 2025 MVEBs for NNJ and SNJ
for transportation conformity purposes
in the near future by completing the
adequacy process that was started on
September 12, 2012. After EPA finds the
MVEBs adequate or approves them, the
new MVEBs for NOX and PM2.5 must be
used for future transportation
conformity determinations.
IX. What action is EPA proposing to
take?
EPA is proposing to approve New
Jersey’s request for redesignating the
NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to
attainment, because the State has
demonstrated compliance with the
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for
redesignation. EPA has evaluated New
Jersey’s redesignation request and
determined that it meets the
redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes
that the monitoring data demonstrate
that the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas has attained the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS and will continue to attain the
standard. Final approval of this
redesignation request would change the
designation of the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38671
nonattainment areas from
nonattainment to attainment for the
1997 PM2.5 annual and the 2006 PM2.5
24-hour NAAQS. EPA is also proposing
to approve the maintenance plan for the
NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas
as a revision to the New Jersey SIP. EPA
is also proposing to approve the 2007
NH3, VOC, NOX, direct PM2.5 and SO2
emissions inventories as meeting the
comprehensive emissions inventory
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA. Additionally, EPA is proposing to
approve the 2009 and 2025 motor
vehicle emissions budgets for PM2.5 and
NOX. EPA is soliciting public comments
on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
38672
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• 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
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does
not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to 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.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 12, 2013.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2013–15147 Filed 6–26–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228
[EPA–R06–OW–2011–0712; FRL–9826–5]
Ocean Dumping; Sabine-Neches
Waterway (SNWW) Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The EPA is proposing to
designate four new Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site(s) (ODMDS)
located offshore of Texas for the
disposal of dredged material from the
Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW),
pursuant to the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act, as
amended (MPRSA). The new sites are
needed for the disposal of additional
dredged material associated with the
SNWW Channel Improvement Project,
which includes an extension of the
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Entrance Channel into the Gulf of
Mexico. Final action by EPA on this
proposal would authorize the disposal
of the additional dredged materials at
the additional ocean disposal sites.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be received on or before August
12, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OW–2011–0712, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov; follow the
online instruction for submitting
comments.
• Email: Dr. Jessica Franks at
franks.jessica@epa.gov.
• Fax: Dr. Jessica Franks, Marine and
Coastal Section (6WQ–EC) at fax
number 214–665–6689.
• Mail: Dr. Jessica Franks, Marine and
Coastal Section (6WQ–EC),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: (6WQ–EC), 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket No. EPA–R06–OW–2011–0712.
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 email. 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 email
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, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Marine and Coastal Section (6WQ–
EC), Environmental Protection Agency,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas,
Texas 75202–2733. The file will be
made available by appointment for
public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA
Review Room between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for
legal holidays. Contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below. If possible,
please make the appointment at least
two working days in advance of your
visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of
documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6
reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jessica Franks, Ph.D., Marine and
Coastal Section (6WQ–EC),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone
(214) 665–8335, fax number (214) 665–
6689; email address
franks.jessica@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
A. Potentially Affected Entities
B. Background
C. Disposal Volume Limit
D. Site Management and Monitoring Plan
E. Ocean Dumping Site Designation Criteria
General Selection Criteria
Specific Selection Criteria
F. Regulatory Requirements
1. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
2. Endangered Species Act Consultation
3. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act of 1996
4. Coastal Zone Management Act
5. Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990
G. Administrative Review
1. Executive Order 12886
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
4. Unfunded Mandates
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM
27JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38648-38672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15147]
[[Page 38648]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0889; FRL-9827-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of New Jersey; Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes and Approval of the Associated Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New
Jersey. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
is requesting that EPA redesignate the New Jersey portion of the New
York-N.New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area, and the New
Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE nonattainment
area, from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006
24-hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). In conjunction with its redesignation request, New
Jersey submitted a SIP revision containing a maintenance plan for the
areas that provides for continued maintenance of the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The maintenance plan includes the
2007 attainment year emissions inventory that EPA is proposing to
approve in this rulemaking in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
EPA is also proposing to approve a supplement to the 2007
attainment year emission inventory previously submitted by the State as
part of the SIP revision. EPA is proposing that the inventories for
ammonia (NH3) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) that were
submitted as part of the supplement, in conjunction with the
inventories for nitrogen oxides (NOX), direct
PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) that were
previously submitted, meet the comprehensive emissions inventory
requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the 2009 and 2025 motor
vehicle emissions budgets for PM2.5 and NOX.
EPA previously determined that the New Jersey portions of the New
York-N.New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT and Philadelphia-Wilmington,
PA-nonattainment areas have attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the
request for redesignation for the 1997 annual and 24-hour 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, the maintenance plan, and the 2007 attainment
year inventory based on EPA's determination that the areas have met the
redesignation requirements set forth in the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 29, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2012-0889 by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: Ruvo.Richard@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 212-637-3901.
4. Mail: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Planning Section, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Richard
Ruvo, Chief, Air Planning Section, 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 business hours is Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2012-0889. 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 through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
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 email
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, 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 electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office,
Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York
10007-1866. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact 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, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Forde (forde.raymond@epa.gov)
concerning emission inventories and Kenneth Fradkin
(fradkin.kenneth@epa.gov) concerning other portions of the SIP
revision, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?
A. General
B. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR or the Transport Rule)
III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
IV. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?
V. What is the effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Decision
Regarding PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4?
A. Background
[[Page 38649]]
B. Proposal on This issue
VI. What is EPA's analysis of New Jersey's redesignation request?
A. Attainment
B. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA
C. Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
D. The Air Quality Improvement Must Be Permanent and Enforceable
E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
VII. What is EPA's analysis of New Jersey's proposed NOX
and PM2.5 motor vehicle emission budgets?
VIII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the
proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2009 and 2025
for Northern and Southern New Jersey?
IX. What action is EPA proposing to take?
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?
On December 26, 2012, the State of New Jersey, through NJDEP,
submitted a request to redesignate the New Jersey portion of the New
York-N.New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area (``NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area''), and the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-
Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area (``PA-NJ-DE nonattainment
area'') from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, NJDEP submitted a
maintenance plan for the areas as a SIP revision to ensure continued
attainment. In a supplemental submission to EPA on May 3, 2013, the
State of New Jersey submitted NH3 and VOC emissions
inventories to supplement the emissions inventories that had been
submitted on December 26, 2012.
EPA is proposing to take several actions pursuant to the
redesignation of the New Jersey portion of the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-
DE nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find that the New Jersey
portion of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as
the Northern New Jersey PM2.5 ``or NNJ'' nonattainment area)
and the New Jersey portion of the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the Southern New Jersey PM2.5 ``or
SNJ'' nonattainment area) meet the requirements for redesignation under
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to approve New Jersey's
request to change the legal definition of the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment
areas from nonattainment to attainment. This action does not impact the
New York and Connecticut portions of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area,
or the Pennsylvania and Delaware portions of the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment
area. EPA may take separate actions on those portions of the
nonattainment areas in a separate rulemaking.
EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the NNJ
and SNJ nonattainment areas as a revision to the New Jersey SIP. Such
approval is one of the CAA criteria for redesignation of an area to
attainment. The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued
attainment in the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for 10 years after
redesignation. The maintenance plan includes the 2007 attainment year,
2017 interim year, and 2025 end year projection emission inventories.
EPA is also proposing to approve the 2009 and 2025 motor vehicle
emissions budgets for PM2.5 and Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX).
In this proposed redesignation, EPA takes into account the D.C.
Circuit January 4, 2013 decision remanding to EPA the ``Final Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and
the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final
rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008), Natural Resources Defense Council v.
EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
EPA's analysis for these proposed actions is discussed in sections
V, VI and VII of today's proposed rulemaking action.
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?
A. General
The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were
promulgated on July 18, 1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated an annual
standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\),
based on a three-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. In the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour
standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a three-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR
61144, EPA retained the annual average standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\ but
revised the 24-hour standard to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on the
three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, and supplemented on April 14,
2005, at 70 FR 19844, EPA designated the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas as nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 air
quality standards. In that action, EPA defined the NNJ nonattainment
area to include Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth,
Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union Counties; and defined the SNJ
nonattainment area to include Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester
Counties. On November 13, 2009, at 74 FR 58688, EPA promulgated
designations for the 24-hour standard set in 2006, designating the NY-
NJ-CT nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
nonattainment area boundaries for the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS were identical to the boundaries
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, containing the same counties as
listed above. EPA did not promulgate designations for the annual
average NAAQS promulgated in 2006 since that NAAQS was essentially
identical to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Today's action
addresses the designation for the annual NAAQS promulgated in 1997, and
the 24-hour NAAQS promulgated in 2006, for the NNJ and the SNJ
nonattainment areas.
In the final rulemaking action dated November 15, 2010 (75 FR
69589), EPA determined, pursuant to CAA section 179(c), that the entire
NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area had attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon quality assured, quality controlled,
and certified ambient air monitoring data for the period of 2007-2009.
On May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28782), EPA determined that the entire PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment area was attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, based upon quality assured, quality controlled, and certified
ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 monitoring
periods.
EPA finalized, on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76867), the
determination that the entire NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area had attained
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon quality assured,
quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data that
showed that the area had monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 monitoring
periods. On January 7, 2013 (78 FR 882), EPA finalized the
determination that the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area had attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon quality assured,
quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data that
showed that the areas had monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2008-2010 and 2009-2011 monitoring
periods.
The 3-year ambient air quality data for the last three year
monitoring periods for the 2007-2009, 2008-2010, and 2009-2011
indicated no violations for
[[Page 38650]]
the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Preliminary design values for 2010-2012 also indicate no violations for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As a
result of the monitoring data continuing to show attainment, on
December 26, 2012 New Jersey requested redesignation of the NNJ and the
SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Under
the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if
sufficient, complete, quality-assured data is available for the
Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard and
the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements under
107(d)(3)(E).
B. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Cross State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR or the Transport Rule)
On May 12, 2005, EPA published CAIR, which requires significant
reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOX from
electric generating units (EGUs) to limit the interstate transport of
these pollutants and the ozone and PM2.5 they form in the
atmosphere. See 70 FR 25162. The D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR,
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178
(D.C. Cir. 2008). In response to the D.C. Circuit's decision, EPA
issued the Transport Rule, also known as CSAPR, to address interstate
transport of NOX and SO2 in the eastern United
States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate
CSAPR. In that decision, it also ordered EPA to continue administering
CAIR ``pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for
rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and other parties have filed
petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, but those petitions
have not been acted on to date. Nonetheless, EPA intends to continue to
act in accordance with the EME Homer City opinion.
As explained below, EPA proposes that New Jersey has demonstrated
that the attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS will be maintained with or without the
implementation of CAIR or CSAPR. New Jersey's maintenance plan does not
include the emission reductions from either program in the permanent
and enforceable Federal and State control measures needed for
attainment and continued maintenance. In addition, air quality modeling
analysis conducted during the CSAPR rulemaking process also
demonstrated that the counties in the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas will have PM2.5 levels below the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in both 2012 and 2014
without taking into account emissions reductions from CAIR or CSAPR.
See ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document'' \1\,
App. B, B-18, B-19. This modeling is also available in the docket for
this proposed redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The document is available at https://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
Under the CAA, designations can be revised if sufficient data is
available to warrant such revisions. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
identifies five specific requirements that an area must meet in order
to be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment.
1. The area must have attained the applicable NAAQS.
2. The area must meet all applicable requirements under section 110
and part D of the CAA.
3. The area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110 (k) of
the CAA.
4. The air quality improvement must be permanent and enforceable.
5. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the CAA.
EPA has provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (April
16, 1992, 57 FR 13498, and supplemented on April 28, 1992, 57 FR 18070)
and has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests
in the following documents:
1. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the
``Calcagni Memorandum'');
2. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response
to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
3. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
4. ``Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS,'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, March 2, 2012.
IV. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?
EPA's approval of the redesignation request, if made final, would
change the official designation of the NNJ and the SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81. It
would incorporate into the New Jersey SIP a maintenance plan ensuring
continued attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS until 2025. The maintenance plan includes,
among other elements, contingency measures to remedy any future
violations, should they occur, of the 1997 annual PM2.5 and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Approval of the 2007 base year
emissions inventory, which is part of the maintenance plan, will
satisfy the inventory requirements under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
V. What is the effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit decision
regarding PM2.5 implementation under subpart 4?
A. Background
As discussed in section I, on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ``Final
Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25,
2007) and the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program
for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)''
final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule''). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
The Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation
provisions of subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the CAA, rather than
the particulate-matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of
Title I. Although the Court's ruling did not directly address the 2006
PM2.5 standard, EPA is taking into account the Court's
position on subpart 4 and the 1997 PM2.5 standard in
evaluating redesignations for the 2006 standard.
B. Proposal on This Issue
EPA is proposing to determine that the Court's January 4, 2013
decision does not prevent EPA from redesignating the NNJ and SNJ
nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Even in light of the Court's decision,
[[Page 38651]]
redesignation for this area is appropriate under the CAA and EPA's
longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions regarding
redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation that
requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a complete
redesignation request is submitted for an area that is attaining the
standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request.
Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4
requirements to the New Jersey redesignation request and disregards the
provisions of its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule recently
remanded by the Court, the State's request for redesignation of this
area still qualifies for approval. EPA's discussion takes into account
the effect of the Court's ruling on the area's maintenance plan, which
EPA views as approvable when subpart 4 requirements are considered.
1. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Evaluating the Redesignation
Request
With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the
Court's January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA's reasons for implementing
the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the provisions of
subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it could address
implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of
part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of
evaluating New Jersey's redesignation request for the areas, to the
extent that implementation under subpart 4 would impose additional
requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA believes that
those requirements are not ``applicable'' for the purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not required to consider subpart
4 requirements with respect to the New Jersey redesignation. Under its
longstanding interpretation of the CAA, EPA has interpreted section
107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold matter, that the part D provisions
which are ``applicable'' and which must be approved in order for EPA to
redesignate an area include only those which came due prior to a
state's submittal of a complete redesignation request. See Calcagni
memorandum referenced in section III. See also SIP Requirements for
Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
on or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993
(Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR
12459, 12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final Redesignation of St. Louis,
Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-25427, May 12, 2003); Sierra Club v. EPA,
375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA's redesignation
rulemaking applying this interpretation and expressly rejecting Sierra
Club's view that the meaning of ``applicable'' under the statute is
``whatever should have been in the plan at the time of attainment
rather than whatever actually was in the plan and already implemented
or due at the time of attainment'').\2\ In this case, at the time that
New Jersey submitted its redesignation request, requirements under
subpart 4 were not due, and indeed, were not yet known to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent
to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain
applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required
as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the NNJ and SNJ
redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time the
State submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the EPA's
interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas
redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit's decision in South Coast
Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South
Coast, the Court found that EPA was not permitted to implement the 1997
8-hour ozone standard solely under subpart 1, and held that EPA was
required under the statute to implement the standard under the ozone-
specific requirements of subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the South
Coast decision, in evaluating and acting upon redesignation requests
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that were submitted to EPA for areas
under subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding interpretation of the CAA
that ``applicable requirements'', for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation, are those that had been due at the time the
redesignation request was submitted. See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation
of Manitowoc County and Door County Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047,
22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, EPA therefore did not
consider subpart 2 requirements to be ``applicable'' for the purposes
of evaluating whether the area should be redesignated under section
107(d)(3)(E).
EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of CAA section
107(d)(3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be
redesignated, a state must meet ``all requirements `applicable' to the
area under section 110 and part D''. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides
that the EPA must have fully approved the ``applicable'' SIP for the
area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support
EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' as only those requirements that
came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request.
First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA
requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation
request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or
impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with
the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section
107(d)(3)(D). If ``applicable requirements'' were interpreted to be a
continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states,
after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously
to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to
undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those
submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that
would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-month
timeframe provided by the Act for this purpose.
Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which
a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for
redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the
Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA compound the
consequences of imposing requirements that come due
[[Page 38652]]
after the redesignation request is submitted. The State submitted its
redesignation request on December 26, 2012, but the Court did not issue
its decision remanding EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule
concerning the applicability of the provisions of subpart 4 until
January 2013.
To require the State's fully-completed and pending redesignation
request to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 that the Court
announced only in January, 2013, would be to give retroactive effect to
such requirements when the State had no notice that it was required to
meet them. The D.C. Circuit recognized the inequity of this type of
retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir.
2002),\3\ where it upheld the District Court's ruling refusing to make
retroactive EPA's determination that the St. Louis area did not meet
its attainment deadline. In that case, petitioners urged the Court to
make EPA's nonattainment determination effective as of the date that
the statute required, rather than the later date on which EPA actually
made the determination. The Court rejected this view, stating that
applying it ``would likely impose large costs on States, which would
face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention
plans . . . even though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at
68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize the State of New
Jersey by rejecting its redesignation request for an area that is
already attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards and that
met all applicable requirements known to be in effect at the time of
the request. For EPA now to reject the redesignation request solely
because the state did not expressly address subpart 4 requirements of
which it had no notice, would inflict the same unfairness condemned by
the Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and distinguished in a
recent D.C. Circuit decision that addressed retroactivity in a quite
different context, where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to
give its regulations retroactive effect. National Petrochemical and
Refiners Ass'n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing
denied 643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Subpart 4 Requirements and New Jersey Redesignation Request
Even if EPA were to take the view that the Court's January 4, 2013
decision requires that, in the context of pending redesignations,
subpart 4 requirements were due and in effect at the time the State
submitted its redesignation request, EPA proposes to determine that the
NNJ and SNJ areas still qualify for redesignation to attainment. As
explained below, EPA believes that the redesignation request for the
NNJ and SNJ areas, though not expressed in terms of subpart 4
requirements, substantively meets the requirements of that subpart for
purposes of redesignating the area to attainment.
With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the NNJ and SNJ areas, EPA
notes that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1 of part D,
which contains general air quality planning requirements for areas
designated as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself
contains specific planning and scheduling requirements for
PM10 \4\ nonattainment areas, and under the Court's January
4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also
apply for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding
general guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making
recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for
SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, ``State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clear Air Act
Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (the ``General
Preamble''). In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of
subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart
1 requirements were to an extent ``subsumed by, or integrally related
to, the more specific PM-10 requirements.'' 57 FR 13538 (April 16,
1992). The subpart 1 requirements include, among other things,
provisions for attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control
measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), emissions
inventories, and contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of this redesignation, in order to identify any
additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, we are
considering the NNJ and SNJ areas to be ``moderate'' PM2.5
nonattainment areas. Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas designated
nonattainment areas under subpart 4 would initially be classified by
operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas, and would remain
moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA reclassifies the area
as a ``serious'' nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA believes that it
is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential impact of
subpart 4 requirements to those that would be applicable to moderate
nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to
moderate nonattainment areas and include the following: (1) An approved
permit program for construction of new and modified major stationary
sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an attainment demonstration
(section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C));
and (4) quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by
the applicable attainment date (section 189(c)).
The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not
itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1. In any event,
in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment new source review
program is not considered an applicable requirement for redesignation,
provided the area can maintain the standard with a prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program after redesignation. A detailed
rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' See also rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66
FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-
31837, June 21, 1996).
With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under
subpart 4,\5\ when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either
subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is attaining the PM2.5
standard is viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning
requirements for these subparts. For redesignations, EPA has for many
years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for
areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ i.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone
requirements, contingency measures.
The requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request
for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality
data for the area must show that the area has already attained.
Showing that the
[[Page 38653]]
State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
meaning at that point.
``General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990''; (57 FR 13498, 13564, April 16, 1992).
The General Preamble also explained that
[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring
RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no
longer apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible
for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans .
. . provides specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for
these areas.
Id.
EPA similarly stated in its 1992 Calcagni memorandum that, ``The
requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures needed
for attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only have
meaning for areas not attaining the standard.''
It is evident that even if we were to consider the Court's January
4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that attainment-related
requirements specific to subpart 4 should be imposed retroactively and
thus are now past due, those requirements do not apply to an area that
is attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, for the
purpose of evaluating a pending request to redesignate the area to
attainment. EPA has consistently enunciated this interpretation of
applicable requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) since the General
Preamble was published more than twenty years ago. Courts have
recognized the scope of EPA's authority to interpret ``applicable
requirements'' in the redesignation context. See Sierra Club v. EPA,
375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, EPA has
viewed the obligations to submit attainment-related SIP planning
requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that EPA determines
are attaining the standard. EPA's prior ``Clean Data Policy''
rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also governed by the
requirements of subpart 4, explain EPA's reasoning. They describe the
effects of a determination of attainment on the attainment-related SIP
planning requirements of subpart 4. See ``Determination of Attainment
for Coso Junction Nonattainment Area,'' (75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010).
See also Coso Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, (75 FR
36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); Proposed and Final Determinations of
Attainment for San Joaquin Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 40954-
40955, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 63641, 63643-63647 October 30, 2006).
In short, EPA in this context has also long concluded that to require
states to meet superfluous SIP planning requirements is not necessary
and not required by the CAA, so long as those areas continue to attain
the relevant NAAQS.
Elsewhere in this action, EPA proposes to determine that the NNJ
and SNJ areas continue to attain the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
standards. Under its longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to
determine here that the areas meet the attainment-related plan
requirements of subparts 1 and 4.
Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit
an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination
under section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration
under 189(c)(1), and contingency measure requirements under section
172(c)(9) are satisfied for purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request.
3. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
The DC Circuit in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at
issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them
consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this section
addresses the Court's opinion with respect to PM2.5
precursors. While past implementation of subpart 4 for PM10
has allowed for control of PM10 precursors such as
NOX from major stationary, mobile, and area sources in order
to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, CAA section
189(e) specifically provides that control requirements for major
stationary sources of direct PM10 shall also apply to
PM10 precursors from those sources, except where EPA
determines that major stationary sources of such precursors ``do not
contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the
standard in the area.''
EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule, remanded by the DC
Circuit, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning certain
PM2.5 precursors applicable to attainment plans and control
measures related to those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA
provided, among other things, that a state was ``not required to
address VOC [and NH3] as . . . PM2.5 attainment
plan precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and NH3]
emissions in the State for control measures.'' EPA intended these to be
rebuttable presumptions. EPA established these presumptions at the time
because of uncertainties regarding the emission inventories for these
pollutants and the effectiveness of specific control measures in
various regions of the country in reducing PM2.5
concentrations. EPA also left open the possibility for such regulation
of VOC and NH3 in specific areas where that was necessary.
The Court in its January 4, 2013 decision made reference to both
section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated that, ``In light of our
disposition, we need not address the petitioners' challenge to the
presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic compounds and
NH3 are not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4
expressly governs precursor presumptions.'' NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10.
Elsewhere in the Court's opinion, however, the Court observed:
NH3 is a precursor to fine particulate matter, making
it a precursor to both PM2.5 and PM10. For a
PM10 nonattainment area governed by subpart 4, a
precursor is presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7513a(e)
[section 189(e)].
Id. at 21, n.7.
For a number of reasons, EPA believes that its proposed
redesignation of the NNJ and SNJ areas is consistent with the Court's
decision on this aspect of subpart 4. First, while the Court, citing
section 189(e), stated that ``for a PM10 area governed by
subpart 4, a precursor is `presumptively regulated,' '' the Court
expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to EPA's 1997
PM2.5 implementation rule provisions regarding
NH3 and VOC as precursors. The Court had no occasion to
reach whether and how it was substantively necessary to regulate any
specific precursor in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area,
and did not address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon
a redesignation request.
However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of
subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the state submitted the
redesignation request, and disregards the implementation rule's
rebuttable presumptions regarding NH3 and VOC as
PM2.5 precursors (and any similar provisions reflected in
guidance for the 2006 PM2.5 standard), the regulatory
consequence would be to consider the need for regulation of all
precursors from any sources in the area to demonstrate attainment and
to apply the section 189(e) provisions to major stationary sources of
precursors. In the case of the NNJ and SNJ areas EPA believes that
doing so is consistent with proposing redesignation of the areas for
the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. The NNJ
and SNJ areas have attained the standard without any specific
additional controls of VOC and
[[Page 38654]]
NH3 emissions from any sources in the area.
Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the
provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important
exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors.\6\ Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior
implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM2.5
precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of
NH3 and VOC. Thus we must address here whether additional
controls of NH3 and VOC from major stationary sources are
required under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the
area for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
As explained below, we do not believe that any additional controls of
NH3 and VOC are required in the context of this
redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for purposes of
demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as practicable, a state is
required to evaluate all economically and technologically feasible
control measures for direct PM emissions and precursor emissions,
and adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538-13542. With regard to precursor
regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated
that control of VOCs under other Act requirements may suffice to
relieve a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section
189(e). 57 FR 13542. EPA in this proposal proposes to determine that
the SIP has met the provisions of section 189(e) with respect to
NH3 and VOCs as precursors. This proposed determination is
based on our findings that (1) the NNJ and SNJ areas contain no major
stationary sources of NH3, and (2) existing major stationary
sources of VOC are adequately controlled under other provisions of the
CAA regulating the ozone NAAQS.\7\ In the alternative, EPA proposes to
determine that, under the express exception provisions of section
189(e), and in the context of the redesignation of the area, which is
attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, at present
NH3 and VOC precursors from major stationary sources do not
contribute significantly to levels exceeding the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards in the NNJ and SNJ areas. See 57 FR 13539-
42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The NNJ and SNJ areas have reduced VOC emissions through the
implementation of various control programs including VOC Reasonably
Available Control Technology regulations and various on-road and
non-road motor vehicle control programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of
PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP
plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast,
redesignation to attainment primarily requires the area to have already
attained due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and to
demonstrate that controls in place can continue to maintain the
standard. Thus, even if we regard the Court's January 4, 2013 decision
as calling for ``presumptive regulation'' of NH3 and VOC for
PM2.5 under the attainment planning provisions of subpart 4,
those provisions in and of themselves do not require additional
controls of these precursors for an area that already qualifies for
redesignation. Nor does EPA believe that requiring New Jersey to
address precursors differently than they have already would result in a
substantively different outcome.
Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of
precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a
redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4
requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for
PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans
that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control
purposes.\8\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of
subpart 4 for PM10.\9\ EPA believes that application of this
approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is reasonable.
Because the NNJ and SNJ areas have already attained the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to regulation of
PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to
conclude in the context of this redesignation that there is no need to
revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to the treatment
of precursors. Even if the Court's decision is construed to impose an
obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to consider
additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect EPA's
approval here of New Jersey's request for redesignation of the NNJ and
SNJ areas. In the context of a redesignation, the areas have shown that
they have attained the standards. Moreover, the State has shown and EPA
is proposing to determine that attainment in these areas are due to
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions on all precursors
necessary to provide for continued attainment. It follows logically
that no further control of additional precursors is necessary.
Accordingly, EPA does not view the January 4, 2013 decision of the
Court as precluding redesignation of the NNJ and SNJ areas to
attainment for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans for California--San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area;
Serious Area Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM-10
Standards,'' 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) (approving a PM10
attainment plan that impose controls on direct PM10 and
NOX emissions and did not impose controls on
SO2, VOC, or ammonia emissions).
\9\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, even if New Jersey were required to address precursors for
the NNJ and SNJ areas under subpart 4 rather than under subpart 1, as
interpreted in EPA's remanded PM2.5 implementation rule, EPA
would still conclude that the area had met all applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section
107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v).
VI. What is EPA's analysis of New Jersey's redesignation request?
In an effort to comply with the CAA and to ensure continued
attainment of the NAAQS, on December 26, 2012, the State of New Jersey
submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
The following is a description of how the state has fulfilled each
of the CAA redesignation requirements.
A. Attainment
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). In this action for this
rulemaking, EPA is proposing to determine that the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-
NJ-DE nonattainment areas are continuing to attain the 1997 annual and
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
An area may be considered to be attaining the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS if it meets the NAAQS as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.7 and Appendix N of part 50, based on three
complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. To attain this standard, the three-year average of
annual means must be less than or equal to 15 [mu]g/m\3\ at all
relevant monitoring sites in the subject area. The relevant data must
be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and
[[Page 38655]]
recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors meet data
completeness requirements when ``at least 75 percent of the scheduled
sampling days for each quarter have valid data.'' The use of less than
complete data is subject to the approval of EPA, which may consider
factors such as monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence,
and nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such data.
As noted in section IIA above, EPA has finalized determinations
that the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas had attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has also reviewed more recent
quality-assured data for both NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment
areas. The ambient air monitoring data submitted by New Jersey shows
PM2.5 concentrations attaining the annual PM2.5
NAAQS for the 2009-2011 time period for both nonattainment areas.
Table 1, below, shows the design value by county (i.e., 3-year
average) of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations) for the 2009-
2011 time period for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-
NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area monitors. Table 2, below,
shows the design value for the 2009-2011 time period for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area
monitors. Preliminary design values\10\ for the 2010-2012 time period
is also shown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ All data for 2012 has been quality-assured.
Table 1--Design Value Concentrations for the NY-NJ-CT 1997 Annual PM2.5 Area ([mu]g/m\3\)
[The standard is 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual mean concentrations Preliminary 2011 3-year Preliminary
------------------------------------------------ annual mean annual design 2012 3-year
concentration value annual design
Nonattainment area counties -------------------------------- value
2009 2010 2011 ---------------
2012 2009-2011 2010-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW JERSEY:
Bergen.............................................. 9.1 8.8 9.8 8.9 9.2 9.2
Essex............................................... INC 9.2 10.5 9.0 INC 9.5
Hudson.............................................. 10.8 10.6 11.8 10.9 11.1 11.1
Mercer.............................................. 9.3 9.5 10.3 8.8 9.7 9.5
Middlesex........................................... 8.1 7.4 8.3 * 8.3 7.9 * 8.0
Monmouth............................................ NM NM NM NM NM NM
Morris.............................................. 8.1 8.5 8.7 7.9 8.5 8.4
Passaic............................................. 9.0 8.9 10.1 9.1 9.3 * 9.3
Somerset............................................ NM NM NM NM .............. ..............
Union............................................... 11.3 10.6 12.2 10.7 11.4 11.2
NEW YORK:
Bronx............................................... 12.7 11.4 11.6 9.5 11.9 9.8
Kings............................................... 10.7 9.9 10.3 9.7 10.3 9.9
Nassau.............................................. 9.0 8.7 8.9 (*) 8.9 (*)
New York............................................ 11.6 11.5 12.2 11.7 11.7 11.8
Orange.............................................. 7.9 8.1 8.6 * 7.8 8.2 * 8.2
Queens.............................................. 9.5 9.4 9.3 8.5 9.4 * 9.1
Richmond............................................ 9.8 9.7 10.1 9.4 9.8 9.6*
Rockland............................................ NM NM NM NM NM NM
Suffolk............................................. 8.1 8.4 8.8 7.9 8.4 8.4
Westchester......................................... 9.1 8.8 9.3 (*) 9.1 (*)
CONNECTICUT:
Fairfield........................................... 9.4 8.8 10.0 9.3 9.4 9.4
New Haven........................................... 9.9 9.0 10.0 9.2 9.6 9.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INC--All counties listed as INC did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement for the relevant time period.
NM--No monitor located in county.
*--Missing 1 or more quarters.
Table 2--Design Value Concentrations for the PA-NJ-DE 1997 Annual PM2.5 Area ([mu]g/m\3\)
[The standard is 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual mean concentrations Preliminary 2011 3-year Preliminary
------------------------------------------------ annual mean annual design 2012 3-year
concentration value annual design
Nonattainment area counties -------------------------------- value
2009 2010 2011 ---------------
2012 2009-2011 2010-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW JERSEY:
Camden.............................................. 9.5 10.3 10.1 9.0 9.7 9.5
Gloucester.......................................... 9.3 10.0 9.4 9.4 9.3 * 9.3
Burlington.......................................... NM NM NM NM NM NM
DELAWARE:
New Castle.......................................... 11.2 11.7 10.3 10.3 10.7 10.4
PENNSYLVANIA:
Bucks............................................... 10.8 10.5 11.5 10.7 10.9 10.9
Chester............................................. 14.1 13.8 13.3 9.8 13.7 * 12.3
[[Page 38656]]
Delaware............................................ 12.4 13.5 12.9 * 12.8 12.9 * 13.1
Montgomery.......................................... 10.4 9.5 10.3 9.7 10.1 9.8
Philadelphia........................................ 11.1 11.0 11.4 16.4 11.2 13.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM--No monitor located in county.
*--Missing 1 or more quarters.
Air monitoring data indicates that the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas continue to meet the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA concludes that NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas
are continuing to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Therefore, EPA proposes that the statutory criterion for attainment of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (40 CFR 50.7 and Appendix N of
part 50) has been met.
2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
An area may be considered to be attaining the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS if it meets the NAAQS as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.13 and Appendix N of part 50, based on three
complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 98th percentile 24-hour
concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix N, is less than or equal to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ at all relevant
monitoring sites in the subject area over a 3-year period. The relevant
data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58 and recorded in EPA's AQS. The monitors meet data completeness
requirements when ``at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days
for each quarter have valid data.'' The use of less than complete data
is subject to the approval of EPA, which may consider factors such as
monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence, and nearby
concentrations in determining whether to use such data.
EPA previously finalized determinations that the NY-NJ-CT and PA-
NJ-DE nonattainment areas had attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, as noted in section IIA. EPA has also reviewed
more recent quality-assured data for both NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas. The ambient air monitoring data submitted by New
Jersey shows PM2.5 concentrations attaining the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2009-2011 time period for both
nonattainment areas.
Table 3, below, shows the design value by county for the 98th
percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations for the 2009-2011
time period for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-NJ-
CT PM2.5 nonattainment area monitors. Table 4 shows the
design value by county for the 2009-2011 time period for the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment area monitors. Preliminary design values \11\ for the
2010-2012 time period is also shown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ All data for 2012 has been quality-assured.
Table 3--Design Value Concentrations for the NY-NJ-CT 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Area ([mu]g/m\3\)
[The standard is 35 [mu]g/m\3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98th percentile 24-hour concentrations Preliminary 2011 3-year 24- Preliminary
------------------------------------------------ 98th hour design 2012 3-year 24-
percentile 24- value hour design
Nonattainment area counties hour ---------------- value
2009 2010 2011 concentration ---------------
---------------- 2009-2011
2012 2010-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW JERSEY:
Bergen.............................................. 27.1 25.1 23.5 19.2 25 23
Essex............................................... INC INC 23.9 21.5 INC 23
Hudson.............................................. 29.2 25.9 28.2 24.6 28 26
Mercer.............................................. 23.0 26.9 27.7 20.5 26 25
Middlesex........................................... 21.0 19.1 20.5 * 17.5 20 * 19
Monmouth............................................ NM NM NM NM NM NM
Morris.............................................. 20.9 22.7 24.4 18.2 23 21
Passaic............................................. 26.1 24.4 25.4 21.4 25 * 24
Somerset............................................ NM NM NM NM NM NM
Union............................................... 27.7 28.1 32.9 25.8 30 29
NEW YORK:
Bronx............................................... 30.0 27.0 27.0 25.1 28 24
Kings............................................... 26.9 24.8 24.3 22.1 25 24
Nassau.............................................. 25.8 20.2 23.1 (*) 23 (*)
New York............................................ 29.0 27.0 26.8 24.9 28 26
Orange.............................................. 20.6 26.5 20.8 * 20.2 23 * 23
Queens.............................................. 26.7 25.5 24.7 20.5 26 * 24
Richmond............................................ 24.6 25.5 23.2 22.1 24 * 24
Rockland............................................ NM NM NM NM NM NM
[[Page 38657]]
Suffolk............................................. 21.6 26.1 21.7 18.7 23 22
Westchester......................................... 27.0 26.7 22.7 (*) 25 (*)
CONNECTICUT:
Fairfield........................................... 26.4 24.2 25.2 22.5 26 24
New Haven........................................... 30.2 25.5 27.5 22.0 28 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM--No monitor located in county.
INC--All counties listed as INC did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement for the relevant time period.
*--Missing 1 or more quarters.
Table 4--Design Value Concentrations for the PA-NJ-DE 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Area ([mu]g/m\3\)
[The standard is 35 [mu]g/m\3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98th percentile 24-hour concentrations Preliminary 2011 3-year 24- Preliminary
------------------------------------------------ 98th hour design 2012 3-year 24-
percentile 24- value hour design
Nonattainment area counties hour ---------------- value
2009 2010 2011 concentration ---------------
---------------- 2009-2011
2012 2010-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW JERSEY:
Camden.............................................. 25.0 23.4 24.3 19.8 24 23
Gloucester.......................................... 21.9 21.6 22.2 21.8 22 * 22
Burlington.......................................... NM NM NM NM NM NM
DELAWARE:
New Castle.......................................... 28.4 27.9 24.7 24.2 27 26
PENNSYLVANIA:
Bucks............................................... 25.8 28.3 29.7 28.2 28 29
Chester............................................. 31.1 35.1 33.8 24.1 33 31
Delaware............................................ 27.9 32.8 28.6 * 31.1 30 * 31
Montgomery.......................................... 27.2 25.9 27.6 21.8 27 25
Philadelphia........................................ 28.6 28.9 30.6 31.4 29 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM--No monitor located in county.
*--Missing 1 or more quarters.
Air monitoring data indicates that the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas continue to meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA concludes that the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment
areas are continuing to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Therefore, EPA proposes that the statutory criterion for attainment of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (40 CFR 50.13 and Appendix N of
part 50) has been met.
B. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA
EPA has determined that the NNJ and the SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas have met all SIP requirements applicable for
purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General
SIP Requirements) and that, upon final approval of the 2007 attainment
year emissions inventory, as discussed below in this proposed
rulemaking, it will have met all applicable SIP requirements under part
D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA is proposing to find that all
applicable requirements of the New Jersey SIP for purposes of
redesignation have been approved in accordance with CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
1. Section 110 SIP Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in CAA section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to the following:
Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));
Provisions for the implementation of part D requirements
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
Provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision,
EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the
interstate transport of air pollutants in accordance with the
NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to
the NOX
[[Page 38658]]
SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222),
and CAIR, May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA
believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment
area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to
evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP
submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state
regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state.
Thus, EPA does not believe that these requirements are applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the other CAA section 110(a)(2)
elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these
requirements after it is redesignated. EPA concludes that the CAA
section 110(a)(2) and part D requirements which are linked with a
particular area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request, and that CAA
section 110(a)(2) elements not linked in the area's nonattainment
status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. This approach
is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity
(i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida
final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR
at 37890, June 19, 2000) and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001).
On April 10, 2013 (78 FR at 21296) EPA proposed action on New
Jersey's section 110 ``infrastructure SIPs'' required under CAA section
110(a)(2) that were submitted by the state. New Jersey submitted an
infrastructure SIP on February 25, 2008 that addressed the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. On January 20, 2010 the state submitted an
infrastructure SIP that addressed the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA will be acting on those SIPs under separate actions.
EPA has reviewed the New Jersey SIP and has concluded that it meets
the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to the
extent they are applicable for purposes for redesignating the NNJ and
SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA has not yet completed
rulemaking on New Jersey's submittals for the PM2.5
infrastructure SIP elements of section 110(a)(2), these requirements
are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked to the
PM2.5 nonattainment status of the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Therefore, EPA believes that
these SIP elements are not applicable requirements for purposes of
review of New Jersey's PM2.5 redesignation request.
2. Title I, part D nonattainment requirements
Subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the CAA sets forth the basic
nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. All
areas that were designated nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS were designated under this subpart of the CAA,
and the requirements applicable to them are contained in sections 172
and 176. EPA's analysis of the particulate-matter-specific provisions
of Subpart 4 of part D of Title I as a result of the January 4, 2013
D.C. Circuit decision is discussed earlier in this notice.
Section 172 Requirements
Under CAA section172, states with nonattainment areas must submit
plans providing for timely attainment and meet a variety of other
requirements. As mentioned, EPA has finalized determinations that the
NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas had attained the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Notwithstanding that New Jersey's obligation to submit an
attainment demonstration, RACT/RACM, RFP, contingency measures, and
other planning SIPs related to the attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS has been suspended due to EPA's determination that the
nonattainment areas attained the NAAQS, New Jersey had previously
submitted a SIP revision (PM2.5 attainment plan) for
attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP was submitted
to EPA on April 1, 2009. EPA proposed to approve the PM2.5
attainment plan on December 14, 2012 (77 FR 74421). As a result of the
determination of attainment, the only remaining requirement to be
considered is the emission inventory required under CAA section
172(c)(3).
The General Preamble for Implementation of Title I also discusses
the evaluation of these requirements in the context of EPA's
consideration of a redesignation request. The General Preamble sets
forth EPA's view of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating
redesignation requests when an area is attaining the standard. See
General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16,
1992).
Because attainment has been reached for the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas, no additional measures are needed to provide for
attainment. CAA section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment
demonstration and RACT/RACM are no longer considered to be applicable
requirements for as long as the area continues to attain the standard
until redesignation. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). The RFP requirement under
CAA section 172(c)(2) is similarly not relevant for purposes of
redesignation.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. As
part of the maintenance plan submitted by New Jersey on December 26,
2012, and further supplemented on May 3, 2013, the State has submitted
an attainment year inventory that meets this requirement. For purposes
of the PM2.5 NAAQS, the emissions inventory should address
not only direct emissions of PM2.5, but also emissions of
all precursors with the potential to participate in PM2.5
formation, i.e., SO2, NOX, VOC and
NH3. The 2007 attainment year emissions inventory submitted
by New Jersey in the December 26, 2012 submission addressed
PM2.5 (including condensables), SO2, and
NOX emissions. The May 3, 2013 submission addressed VOC and
NH3.
The emissions cover the general source categories of point sources,
area sources, onroad sources and nonroad sources. The proposed approval
of the 2007 attainment year emissions inventory in this rulemaking
action will, when finalized, meet the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(3).
The 2007 emissions inventory was prepared by NJDEP and is presented
in Tables 7A and 7B located in section VI.E.2(a), Attainment Emissions
Inventory, of this action. The tables show the 2007 base year
PM2.5, NOx, SO2, VOC and
NH3 annual emission inventories for the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA's detailed evaluation of the
base year inventories for all pollutants are addressed in section
VI.E.2.(a), Attainment Emissions
[[Page 38659]]
Inventory, of this action. A copy of the Technical Support Document
\13\ submitted by New Jersey is included in the New Jersey SIP
submission.
Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires the identification and
quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified
stationary sources in an area, and CAA section 172(c)(5) requires
source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified
major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has
determined that, since the PSD requirements will apply after
redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the
requirement that a nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) program be
approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale
for this view is described in the memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994
entitled, ``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.''
New Jersey has not relied on a part D NSR program to maintain air
quality for the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover, because the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas are being redesignated to
attainment by this action, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) requirements will be applicable to new or modified sources of
PM2.5 in the area.
New Jersey currently implements NSR in the thirteen nonattainment
counties through the ``transitional'' NSR provisions contained in
Appendix S of 40 CFR Part 51 and the USEPA policy memorandum dated July
21, 2011, concerning interpollutant offsets. The Federal provisions and
policy memorandum will be superseded once New Jersey revises its
Emission Offset Rule N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.
New Jersey does not have its own promulgated regulations as part of
the SIP for part C Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules.
New Jersey is appropriately implementing the PSD program through the
delegated federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. The program will
become effective in the NNJ and SNJ areas upon redesignation to
attainment.
Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures
necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because attainment
has been reached in the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas,
no additional control measures are needed to provide for attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes the New
Jersey SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas
``shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be
undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to
attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part.
Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency
measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the
State or [EPA].'' This contingency measure requirement is inextricably
tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration
requirements. Because attainment has been reached for the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, contingency measures are
not applicable for redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine transportation conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and projects that are developed, funded
or approved under Title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the
Federal Transit Act. The requirement to determine general conformity
applies to all other federally supported or funded projects. State
transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal
transportation conformity regulations relating to consultation,
enforcement and enforceability that EPA promulgated pursuant to its
authority under the CAA \12\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Guidance on transportation conformity SIPs can be found at:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b09001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA interprets the conformity \13\ SIP requirements as not applying
for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d)
because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation
and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this
interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (redesignation
of Tampa, Florida).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit
revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain Federal criteria and
procedures for determining transportation conformity. Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from MVEBs that are established in
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA requires that for an area to be
redesignated the Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k).
Upon final approval of New Jersey's 2007 attainment year emissions
inventory, EPA will have fully approved the SIPs for the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 110(k) for all requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation.
EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 attainment year emissions
inventory (submitted as part of its maintenance plan) for the NNJ and
SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas as meeting the requirement of
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, New Jersey will have satisfied all
applicable requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA.
D. The Air Quality Improvement Must Be Permanent and Enforceable
The improvement in air quality must be due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of
the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and
other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA proposes to determine that the air quality
improvement in New Jersey in the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures,
and other state adopted measures.
New Jersey's redesignation submission cited a number of regulatory
programs that provided for emission reductions of PM2.5, and
PM2.5 precursors NOX, and SO2. New
Jersey also included control measures for VOCs, which were not
considered quantifiable precursors when the redesignation request was
submitted, as they expected some PM2.5 benefit from the
implementation of VOC control measures.
The regulatory control measures for PM2.5, and
PM2.5 precursors VOCs, NOX, and SO2,
included in New Jersey's redesignation submission have been adopted
into the SIP, which provided for emission reductions from 2002 to 2009,
the year modeled for the attainment demonstration for the 1997
[[Page 38660]]
PM2.5 NAAQS. New Jersey also included additional measures
that were adopted by the state, but not yet implemented, that would
provide benefit after 2009. From 2002 to 2009, statewide emissions
decreased significantly: PM2.5 emissions decreased by 34
percent, NOX emissions have decreased by 39 percent, and
SO2 emissions have decreased by 70 percent.
Tables 5A and 5B below, show the State and Federal control
measures, which provide emission reductions from 2002 to 2009. The
tables also summarize the maintenance plan measures with quantifiable
emission reductions that New Jersey is relying on to demonstrate
maintenance; discussed in more detail in section VI.E below. Additional
2002 to 2009 control measures that support the SIP but were not
quantified, or are VOC only measures, are also shown.
Table 5A--New Jersey's 2002-2009 Control Measures That Reduce Emissions of PM2.5 and Its Precursors in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeted pollutants
Measure -------------------------------------------------------- Maintenance Affected State rules
NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC plan measure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (IM) X ............ ............ X X NJAC 7:27-15.
Program.
NOX Budget Program (SIP Call)............ X ............ X ............ ............ NJAC 7:27-30.
Electric Generating Unit (EGU)--BL X X X ............ ............ NA.
England Administrative Consent Order
(ACO).
EGUP-SEG--Consent Decree................. X X X ............ X NA.
Refinery Consent Decree (Sunoco, Valero, X X X X X NA.
ConocoPhillips).
Industrial, Commercial and Institutional X ............ ............ ............ X NJAC 7:27-27.19.
Boilers (ICI) Boilers, Turbines and
Engines 2005.
Case by Case NOX and VOC (Facility X ............ ............ X ............ NJAC 7:27-16, 19.
Specific Emission Limits or FSELs/
Administrative Emission Limits or AELs).
Sewage and Sludge Incinerators........... X ............ ............ ............ ............ NJAC 7:27-19.28.
New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) X X X X X NJAC 7:27-29.
Program.
Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) X ............ ............ ............ ............ NJAC 7:27-19.13.
Asphalt Production Plants................ X ............ ............ ............ X NJAC 7:27-19.9.
ICI Boilers 2009......................... X ............ ............ ............ X NJAC 7:27-19.7.
EGU-High Electric Demand Day (HEDD)...... X ............ X ............ ............ NJAC 7:27-19.29.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional New Jersey Measures That Support the SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage I and II (Gasoline Transfer ............ ............ ............ X ............ NJAC 7:27-16.
Operations)..
Architectural Coatings 2005.............. ............ ............ ............ X ............ NJAC 7:27-23.
Consumer Products 2005................... ............ ............ ............ X ............ NJAC 7:27-24.
Mobile Equipment Refinishing (Auto body). ............ ............ ............ X ............ NJAC 7:27-16.
Solvent Cleaning......................... ............ ............ ............ X ............ NJAC 7:27-16.
Portable Fuel Containers 2005............ ............ ............ ............ X ............ NJAC 7:27-24.
Mercury Rule............................. X X X ............ ............ NJAC 7:27-27.
Diesel Vehicle Retrofit Program.......... ............ X ............ ............ ............ NJAC 7:27-32, 14.
Consumer Products 2009................... ............ ............ ............ X ............ NJAC 7:27-24.
Adhesives & Sealants..................... ............ ............ ............ X ............ NJAC 7:27-26.
Asphalt Paving (cutback and emulsified).. ............ ............ ............ X ............ NJAC 7:27-16.19.
Control Technology Guideline (CTG) Group ............ ............ ............ X ............ NJAC 7:27-16.7.
1: Printing.
Portable Fuel Containers 2009............ ............ ............ ............ X ............ NJAC 7:27-24.
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)... X X X X ............ NJAC 7:27-8.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration X X X X ............ NA.
(PSD).
Energy Master Plan....................... X X X X ............ NA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5B--Federal 2002-2009 Control Measures That Reduce Emissions of PM2.5 and Its Precursors in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeted pollutants
Measure -------------------------------------------------------- Maintenance
NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC plan measure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Woodstove NSPS................ X X ............ X X
Motor Vehicle Control Program (Tier 1 and X X X X X
Tier 2)..................................
Acid Rain Program......................... X ............ X ............ ............
Nonroad Diesel Engine Standards........... X X ............ X X
Phase 2 Standards for New Nonroad Spark- X ............ ............ X X
Ignition Nonhandheld Engines at or below
19 kW (lawn and garden)..................
Phase 2 Standards for Small Spark-Ignition X ............ ............ X X
Handheld Engines at or below 19 kW (lawn
and garden)..............................
Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Defeat X ............ ............ ............ ............
Device Settlement........................
Gasoline Boats and Personal Watercraft, X X ............ X X
Outboard Engines.........................
National Low Emission Vehicle Program X X ............ X X
(NLEV)...................................
[[Page 38661]]
Large Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines X ............ ............ ............ X
over 19 kW (>50 hp) Tier 1 and Tier 2....
Heavy-Duty Highway Rule--Vehicle Standards X X ............ X X
and Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control...........
Diesel Marine Engines over 37 kW Category X ............ ............ X X
1 Tier 2, Category 2 Tier 2, Category 3
Tier 1...................................
Recreational Vehicles (includes X ............ ............ X X
snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, and
all-terrain vehicles)....................
Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression- X X ............ X X
Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per
Cylinder Tier 2 and Tier 3...............
USEPA Maximum Achievable Control ............ ............ ............ X X
Technology (MACT) Standards including
Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 6A and 6B show additional post 2009 maintenance plan
measures with creditable emission reductions, including measures that
have been adopted but not yet implemented, that New Jersey is relying
on to demonstrate maintenance; discussed in more detail in section VI.E
below. New Jersey's submittal also included additional measures to
provide additional assurance that the improvement in New Jersey's air
quality will continue to improve.
Table 6A--New Jersey's Post 2009 Control Measures That Reduce Emissions of PM2.5 and Its Precursors in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeted pollutants
Measure -------------------------------------------------------- Maintenance Affected State rules
NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC plan measure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle IM Program Revisions............. X ............ ............ X X NJAC 7:27-15.
Glass Manufacturing...................... X ............ ............ ............ X NJAC 7:27-19.10.
EGU--Coal, Oil, and Gas Fired Boilers.... X X X ............ X NJAC 7:27-4.2, 10.2, 19.4.
Low Sulfur Distillate and Residual Fuel X ............ X ............ X NJAC 7:27-9, 7:27-27.9.
Strategies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6B--Federal Post 2009 Control Measures That Reduce Emissions of PM2.5 and Its Precursors in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeted pollutants
Measure -------------------------------------------------------- Maintenance
NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC plan measure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines X X ............ ............ X
MACT.....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey also presented data to demonstrate that the decline in
PM2.5 concentrations was due primarily to permanent and
enforceable control measures rather than the country's economic
recession that began in 2007 and resulting downturn in energy use.
Although electricity generation in New Jersey decreased by one
percent from 2007 to 2009, electricity generation in New Jersey has
experienced an overall increase of 5 percent from 2002 to 2011. In
contrast, emission reductions have outpaced generation changes with
decreases of 93, 84 and 72 percent for SO2, NOX
and PM2.5, respectively, from 2000-2011, with significant
emission reductions occurring prior to 2007. From 2007 to 2009,
emission reductions for SO2, NOX and
PM2.5 show decreases of 65, 51, and 46 percent,
respectively.
New Jersey also examined the onroad mobile sector to determine if
statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data declined and whether it was
significant enough to affect air quality compared to emission
reductions from ``fleet turnover''. ``Fleet turnover'' refers to the
replacement of older, more polluting vehicles with newer vehicles that
emit pollutants at lower levels as a result of the Federal ``Tier 2''
new vehicle emission standards (began with the 2004 model year), and
further augmented by the California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV)II new
vehicle emission standards (began with the 2009 model year in New
Jersey).
Based on yearly statewide data, VMT declined approximately 3.7
percent in 2008 and 0.5 percent in 2009 after steady annual VMT
increases of about two percent between 1996 and 2006. Between 2007 and
2009, emissions of PM2.5 decreased by 23 percent, and
NOX by 24 percent. An evaluation of onroad emissions data
from 2002 to 2009 shows New Jersey emissions of PM2.5
decreasing by approximately 39 percent and emissions of NOX
decreasing by approximately 50 percent, even though VMT increased by
4.5 to 6 percent. This suggests that fleet turnover, rather than
changes in VMT, had a much greater impact on onroad emissions.
New Jersey has demonstrated that actual enforceable emission
reductions are responsible for the air quality
[[Page 38662]]
improvement. EPA proposes to find that the combination of existing EPA-
approved SIP and Federal measures contribute to the permanence and
enforceability of reduction in ambient PM2.5 levels that
have allowed New Jersey to attain the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved
maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the
NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas to attainment for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, New Jersey submitted a SIP revision to provide
for maintenance for at least 10 years after the effective date of
redesignation to attainment. EPA believes this maintenance plan meets
the requirements for approval under section 175A of the CAA.
1. What is required in a maintenance plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction
of any future PM2.5 violations. The Calcagni Memorandum,
dated September 4, 1992, provides further guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address
five requirements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a
maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for 10 years; (3) a
commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network; (4)
verification of continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan to
prevent or correct future violations. As is discussed more fully below,
EPA proposes to find that the New Jersey maintenance plan includes all
the necessary components and is thus proposing to approve it as a
revision to the New Jersey SIP.
2. Analysis of the Maintenance Plan
The maintenance demonstration must demonstrate effective safeguards
of the NAAQS for at least 10 years following the redesignation showing
that future PM2.5 and precursor emissions will not exceed
the level of the attainment year.
States are required to submit the following inventory elements to
satisfy the redesignation/maintenance plan inventory requirements:
Maintenance Plan Attainment Inventory. Maintenance plan provisions
include a comprehensive, accurate, and current emissions inventory from
all point, area, nonroad and onroad mobile sources for the
PM2.5 nonattainment area. States are required to develop an
attainment inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area
that is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. This inventory should include
the emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring
data showing attainment.
Maintenance Plan Interim Year Inventory. At a minimum, emissions
should be projected to a midpoint year between the attainment year and
the endpoint/10-year inventory. This inventory provides a summary of
controlled emissions for point, area, nonroad and onroad mobile sources
for the PM2.5 nonattainment area for the interim year
inventory.
Maintenance Plan Projected Final Year Inventory. Emissions should
be projected from the attainment year to at least 10 years into the
future. This inventory provides a summary of controlled emissions for
point, area, nonroad and onroad mobile sources at the endpoint/10-year
period.
For the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 2007
emissions were projected to 2017 and 2025. New Jersey must demonstrate,
with the control programs identified in this SIP, that total 2017 or
2025 projected emissions do not exceed the 2007 emission levels.
Below are EPA's review and evaluation of the maintenance
demonstration for the two areas. Additional detail is provided in the
TSD.
(a) Attainment Emissions Inventory
Selection of 2007 Base Year as the Maintenance Plan Attainment
Year. Inventory An attainment inventory is comprised of the emissions
during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing
attainment. New Jersey selected 2007 as the attainment inventory year
for the SNJ and NNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas for the 1997
annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards.
For the 1997 PM2.5 annual standard, the NNJ
nonattainment area had monitored attainment based on air monitoring
data for 2007-2009; and the SNJ nonattainment area had monitored
attainment based on air monitoring data for 2007-2009, and 2008-2010.
Additionally, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, the NNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment area had monitored attainment for 2007-
2009, and 2008-1010; and the SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment area
had monitored attainment for 2008-2010, and 2009-2011.
Historically for the attainment inventory, the state would select
an attainment year inventory characterizing emissions in the
maintenance area from one of the three years in the three-year period
in which the state monitored attainment. For the SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment area, New Jersey should have selected 2008 or 2009 as the
attainment year inventory for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard. However, the state believes that the 2007 inventory is an
appropriate and representative inventory to use as a surrogate
attainment inventory for the 2008 inventory for the SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard for several reasons discussed:
The 2007 inventory is the most comprehensive inventory
developed by states in the region for SIP purposes.
For all of the available data, the monitors in the SNJ
nonattainment area showed compliance with the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ during the 2007-2009
monitoring period. However, there was some incomplete data for 2007 in
the SNJ area that was not able to be addressed through data
substitution and statistical analysis. Incomplete data also existed for
the 2008-2010 monitoring period, but was able to be addressed through
data substitution and statistical analysis.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See TSD in EPA Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0371 at
wwww.regulations.gov for discussion of EPA's procedure for
addressing missing data not meeting completeness requirements for
monitors in the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area for the 2006 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The monitors in the NNJ PM2.5 nonattainment
area showed compliance with the 35 [mu]g/m\3\ daily standard during the
2007-2009 monitoring period.
The 2007 and 2008 emission inventories are comparable, as
demonstrated by a comparison of New Jersey's 2007 inventory with
USEPA's 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI).
[[Page 38663]]
Most important, comparison of the 2008 to the 2017 and
2025 inventories, shows that emissions will continue to decrease and
will be well below the 2007 and 2008 levels for PM2.5 and
its precursors, NOX, and SO2, in the SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment area.
For these reasons, the state selected the 2007 inventory as a
surrogate for the 2008 inventory. EPA proposes to concur that the 2007
base year emissions inventory is appropriate as the attainment year
inventory for the PM2.5 redesignation maintenance plan.
Criteria for Approval of the Maintenance Plan Attainment Year
Inventory. There are general and specific components of an acceptable
emission inventory. In general, the State must submit a revision to its
SIP and the emission inventory must meet the minimum requirements for
reporting by source category.
For a base year emission inventory to be acceptable it must pass
all of the following acceptance criteria:
1. Evidence that the inventory was quality assured by the state and
its implementation documented.
2. The point source inventory must be complete.
3. Point source emissions must have been prepared or calculated
according to the current EPA guidance.
4. The area source inventory must be complete.
5. The area source emissions must have been prepared or calculated
according to the current EPA guidance.
6. Non-road mobile emissions were prepared according to current EPA
guidance for all of the source categories.
7. The method (e.g., Highway Performance Monitoring System or a
network transportation planning model) used to develop VMT estimates
must follow EPA guidance. The VMT development methods must be
adequately described and documented in the inventory report.
8. The Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model must be
correctly used to produce emission factors for each of the vehicle
classes.
EPA's Evaluation of the Maintenance Plan Attainment Year Inventory
Quality Assurance Plan Implementation
The Quality Assurance (QA) plan was implemented for all portions of
the inventory. QA checks were performed relative to data collection and
analysis, and double counting of emissions from point, area and mobile
sources. QA/QC checks were conducted to ensure accuracy of units, unit
conversions, transposition of figures, and calculations.
Point and Area Source Inventories
New Jersey's inventory includes major point sources based on
specific thresholds for each pollutant in tons per year (tpy). The
inventory report describes how point and area source activity levels
and their associated parameters were developed, and how the data were
used to calculate emission estimates. The inventory lists the source
categories that are included in (and excluded from) the area source
inventory. The report provides referenced documents for activity level
and emission factors used. Information on how control efficiencies were
derived (with the associated sample calculations) is also provided.
Point and area source summary information on detailed county and/or
nonattainment area levels, are included in the inventory. Where
applicable, annual emissions are provided for PM2.5,
NOx, SO2, VOC and NH3 for the
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
The primary sources of anthropogenic NH3 emissions are
two agricultural operations, livestock and fertilizer. NH3
emissions from livestock and fertilizer were prepared by the USEPA
using the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) Ammonia Model, version 6.
The model runs are based on 2007 activity levels. NH3
emissions for industrial refrigeration, composting, and publicly owned
treatment works were prepared by the USEPA.
Nonroad Mobile Source Inventory
For New Jersey, the predominant non-road mobile source categories
(i.e., agricultural equipment, construction equipment, industrial
equipment, airport service equipment, light commercial equipment, lawn
and garden equipment,etc.) were developed by the Nonroad Emissions
Equipment Model 2008 released by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air
Quality (OTAQ). Nonroad mobile source emissions are presented on a
source category, county and/or nonattainment area basis. Where
applicable, annual emissions are provided for PM2.5,
NOX, SO2, VOC and NH3 for the
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Aircraft, Locomotive and Commercial Marine Vessel Inventories
Where applicable, aircraft, locomotive, and commercial marine
vessel emissions on a county and/or nonattainment area basis are
provided for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and
NH3. Activity level and emissions data for each source
category is provided. Aircraft, locomotive and commercial marine vessel
source emissions are presented on a source category, county and/or
nonattainment area basis. Where applicable, annual emissions are
provided for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and
NH3 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Onroad Mobile Source Inventory
New Jersey's mobile source inventory was developed by using the
travel demand model (TDM) used by the two Metropolitan Planning
Organizations in the States as the basis for estimating actual county
level and functional class VMT estimates. Estimates were developed from
the aforementioned sources for each roadway functional class, by
county, in each of the PM2.5 nonattainment areas. MOVES2010a
Model was used to generate emission factors for on-road vehicle
emission estimates. It provides the sources for the key inputs into the
mobile source emissions model. Key assumptions are also included. Where
applicable, PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and
NH3 mobile emissions are presented on county and/or
nonattainment area basis. Where applicable, annual emissions are
provided for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and
NH3 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Tables 7A and 7B below show the 2007 base year PM2.5,
NOX, SO2, VOC and NH3 annual emission
inventories for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Table 7A--2007 NNJ Area Base Year Inventory
[In tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Point Area Nonroad mobile Onroad mobile Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM 2.5.......................... 4,937 5,498 2,497 3,677 16,610
NOX............................. 15,828 16,122 39.457 93,385 164,793
SOX............................. 20,360 4,983 5,761 586 31,690
VOC............................. 7,584 60,560 26,833 47,490 142,667
[[Page 38664]]
NH3............................. 804 2,909 37 2,101 5,840
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7B--2007 SNJ Area Base Year Inventory
[In tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Point Area Nonroad mobile Onroad mobile Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM 2.5.......................... 800 2,837 560 1,055 5,159
NOX............................. 4,453 3,483 6,790 26,992 41,718
SOX............................. 2,034 1,128 1,642 161 4,965
VOC............................. 2,041 17,184 6,490 10,880 36,594
NH3............................. 53 1,032 12 462 1,559
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 base year inventory for
PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and
NH3 for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment
areas. The 2007 Maintenance Plan Attainment Year/Base Year emissions
inventory is comprehensive, accurate, and current for all sources of
relevant pollutants in the nonattainment area. In all cases the 2007
attainment/base year inventory was done in accordance with EPA
guidance. The technical support document provides additional
information regarding the review conducted by EPA for the 2007
PM2.5 base year inventory.
(b) 2017 Interim and 2025 End Year Projection Inventories
Criteria for Approval of the 2017 Interim and 2025 Projection End
Year Inventories. There are general and specific components for
acceptable 2017 Maintenance Plan Interim and 2025 End Year Projection
Inventories. In general, the State must submit a revision to its SIP
and the aforementioned components must meet certain minimum
requirements for reporting by source category.
For the projection inventories to be acceptable they must pass the
following acceptance criteria: \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Emission Inventory Improvement Program guidance document
titled Volume X, Emission Projections, dated December 1999
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Were the 2017 and 2025 projection inventories developed in
accordance with the procedures outlined in EPA's latest guidance?
2. Were the Plans developed in accordance with EPA's latest
guidance for Growth Factors, Projections, and Control Strategies for
Reasonable Progress Goal Plans?
EPA's Evaluation of the Maintenance Plan 2017 Interim and 2025 End
Year Projection Inventories. A projection of 2007 PM2.5,
NOX, and SO2 anthropogenic emissions to 2017 and
2025 is required to determine the emission reductions needed for
inventory maintenance plan. The 2017 and 2025 projection year emission
inventories are calculated by multiplying the 2007 base year inventory
by factors which estimate growth from 2007 to 2017 and 2025. A specific
growth factor for each source type in the inventory is required since
sources typically grow at different rates.
Major Point Sources
Electric Generating Units (EGU) and Non-Electric Generating Units (Non-
EGUs)
For the major point source category, the projected emissions
inventories were first calculated by estimating growth in each source
category. As appropriate, the 2007 emissions inventory was used as the
base for applying factors to account for inventory growth. The point
source inventory was grown from the 2007 inventory to 2017 and 2025 for
each facility using growth factors utilized in New Jersey's Emissions
Statement Program, US Department of Energy's (USDOE) Annual Energy
Outlook projections, and NJ Department of Labor statistics.
Area Sources
For the area source category, New Jersey projected emissions from
2007 to 2017 and 2025 using growth factors generated from USDOE 2011
Annual Energy Outlook, and state-supplied population and employment
data, where appropriate.
Non-Road Mobile Sources
Nonroad Vehicle Equipment Emissions
Non-road vehicle equipment emissions were projected from 2007 to
2017 and 2025 using the EPA's NONROAD 2008a model (July 2009 version).
This model was used to calculate past and future emission inventories
for all nonroad equipment categories except commercial marine vessels,
locomotives and aircrafts. Emissions were determined on a monthly basis
and combined to provide annual emission estimates.
Aircrafts, Locomotives and Commercial Marine Vessels (CMV)
Aircraft emissions were projected from 2007 to 2017 and 2025 based
on landing and takeoff growth factors from the Federal Aviation
Administration Terminal Area Forecast System for 2009-2030.
Locomotives emissions were projected from 2007 to 2017 and 2025
based on combined growth and control factors from EPA's regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) in May 2008 for control of locomotive engines and
USDOE's 2006 Annual Energy Outlook report.
CMV emissions were projected to 2017 and 2025 using EPA's May 2008
RIA report, for category 1 and 2 vessels and EPA's 2009 RIA report for
category 3 vessels based on combined growth and control factors.
Onroad Mobile Sources
For the onroad mobile source category, the primary indicator and
tool for developing on-road mobile growth and expected emissions are
VMT and US EPA's mobile emissions model MOVES2010a. Projection years
2017 and 2025 pollutant emission factors were generated by MOVES2010a
(with the associated controlled measures applied, where appropriate)
and applied to the monthly VMT projections provided by the State.
Monthly emissions were then combined to develop annual emission
estimates.
Tables 8A-8C and 9A-9C, show the 2017 and 2025 projection emission
inventories controlled after 2007 using the aforementioned growth
indicators/
[[Page 38665]]
methodologies for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas,
respectively.
Table 8A--Comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the NNJ Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Sector 2007 2017 2025 2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 4,937 3,131 3,243 ..............
Area............................................ 5,498 5,436 5,616 ..............
Nonroad......................................... 2,497 1,725 1,410 ..............
On-road......................................... 3,677 1,874 1,218 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 16,610 12,227 11,487 -5,123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8B--Comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2025 NOX Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the NNJ Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Sector 2007 2017 2025 2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 15,828 13,512 4,126 ..............
Area............................................ 16,122 15,969 3,429 ..............
Nonroad......................................... 39,457 27,050 4,998 ..............
On-road......................................... 93,385 45,687 13,504 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 164,793 102,218 26,057 -138,736
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8C--Comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2025 SO2 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the NNJ Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Sector 2007 2017 2025 2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 20,360 3,583 1,245 ..............
Area............................................ 4,983 452 102 ..............
Nonroad......................................... 5,761 719 105 ..............
On-road......................................... 586 531 129 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 31,690 5,295 1,579 -30,111
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9A--Comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the SNJ Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Sector 2007 2017 2025 2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 800 818 858 ..............
Area............................................ 2,837 2,243 2,651 ..............
Nonroad......................................... 560 372 315 ..............
On-road......................................... 1,055 616 278 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 5,159 4,549 4,102 -1,057
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9B--Comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2025 NOx Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the SNJ Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Sector 2007 2017 2025 2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 4,453 4,126 4,433 ..............
Area............................................ 3,483 3,429 3,427 ..............
[[Page 38666]]
Nonroad......................................... 6,790 4,998 3,915 ..............
On-road......................................... 26,992 13,504 6,095 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 41,718 26,057 17,870 -23,848
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9C--Comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2025 SO2 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the SNJ Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Sector 2007 2017 2025 2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 2,034 1,245 1,355 ..............
Area............................................ 1,128 102 260 ..............
Nonroad......................................... 1,642 105 141 ..............
On-road......................................... 161 129 161 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 4,965 1,579 1,880 -3,085
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The permanent and enforceable control measures that are relied on
to provide continued attainment or maintenance of the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are listed as maintenance plan
measures in tables 5 (A thru B) and 6 (A thru B). New Jersey has
already implemented, or adopted these control measures, some with
future implementation dates. Additional information regarding the
control measures can be found in the TSD. EPA is proposing to approve
the 2017 interim and 2025 projection inventories for PM2.5,
NOX and SO2 for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas. In all cases the 2017 and 2025 projection year
inventories were performed in accordance with EPA guidance. For further
information concerning EPA's evaluation and analysis of the emission
inventories, see the TSD available in the docket.
Tables 8A-9C above show the inventories for the 2007 attainment
year, the 2017 interim year, and the 2025 endpoint year for the NNJ and
SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Table 8A-9C show that between
2007 and 2017, the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas,
are projected to reduce SO2, NOX and
PM2.5 emissions substantially. Between 2007 and 2025, the
NNJ and SNJ areas are projected to reduce emissions well below the 2007
attainment inventory emission levels for all three pollutants. Thus,
the projected emissions inventories show that the NNJ and SNJ areas
will continue to maintain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS during the 10 year maintenance period.
Maintenance Demonstration Thru 2025
As noted in section VI.E.1, CAA section 175A requires a state
seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide
for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area ``for at least 10 years
after the redesignation.'' EPA has interpreted this as a showing of
maintenance ``for a period of 10 years following redesignation.'' See
Calcagni Memorandum. Where the emissions inventory method of showing
maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions during the
maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year
inventory. See Calcagni Memorandum.
As discussed in detail above, the State's maintenance plan
submission expressly documents that the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas' emissions inventories will remain below the
attainment year inventories through at least 2025. In addition, for the
reasons set forth below, EPA proposes to determine that the State's
submission further demonstrates that the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas will continue to maintain the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at least through 2025:
As explained in the previous section, levels of
SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 are projected to
decrease substantially between 2007 and 2025. EPA believes that it is
highly improbable that sudden increases would occur that could exceed
the attainment year inventory levels in 2025.
Air quality concentrations for PM2.5 are 1 to 2
[mu]g/m\3\ or more under the NAAQS level, indicating a margin of safety
in the event of any emissions increase. As shown in tables 1 and 2, for
the 1997 annual NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\, the design value for 2009-2011
for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area value was 11.7
[mu]g/m\3\; and the design value for 2009-2011 for the PA-NJ-DE
PM2.5 nonattainment area was measured at 13.7 [mu]g/m\3\. As
shown in tables 3 and 4, for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS of 35
[mu]g/m\3\, the design value for 2009-2011 for the NY-NJ-CT
PM2.5 nonattainment area was 30 [mu]g/m\3\; and the design
value for 2009-2011 for the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment
area was measured at 33 [mu]g/m\3\.
Air quality concentrations showed a significant downward
trend over time for both the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE PM2.5
nonattainment areas for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
See figures 3 thru 6 of the New Jersey redesignation request, which is
available in the docket.
Additional emissions reductions will occur now, and in the
future, from EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) \16\, New
Jersey's Diesel Retrofit Program, NJDEP's amended Administrative
Consent Order with B.L. England, and from New Jersey's Clean
Construction Program. See the TSD for more information regarding these
measures, including expected emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 38667]]
(c) Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of Precursors
With regard to the redesignation of NNJ and SNJ areas, in
evaluating the effect of the D.C. Circuit's remand of EPA's
implementation rule, which included presumptions against consideration
of VOC and NH3 as PM2.5 precursors, in this
proposal EPA is also considering the impact of the decision on the
maintenance plan required under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To
begin with, EPA notes that the area has attained the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards and that the state, as shown below, has
shown that attainment of that standard is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions.
EPA proposes to determine that the State's maintenance plan shows
continued maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by tracking the levels of the precursors whose
control brought about attainment of the standards in the NNJ and SNJ
nonattainment areas. EPA therefore determines that the additional
consideration related to the maintenance plan requirements that results
from the Court's January 4, 2013 decision is that of assessing the
potential role of VOC and NH3 in demonstrating continued
maintenance in this area. As explained below, based upon documentation
provided by the State and supporting information, EPA believes that the
maintenance plan for the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas need not
include any additional emission reductions of VOC or NH3 in
order to provide for continued maintenance of the standard.
First, as noted above in EPA's discussion of section 189(e), VOC
emission levels in this area have historically been well-controlled
under SIP requirements related to ozone and other pollutants. Second,
total NH3 emissions for the NNJ and SNJ area are very low,
estimated to be less than 6,000 and 1,600 tons per year, respectively.
See Tables 7A and 7B. This amount of NH3 emissions appears
especially small in comparison to the total amounts of SO2,
NOX, and even PM2.5 emissions from sources in the
areas. Third, as described below, available information shows that no
precursor, including VOC and NH3, is expected to increase
over the maintenance period so as to interfere with or undermine the
State's maintenance demonstration.
NNJ and SNJ areas' maintenance plans show that emissions of direct
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX are projected to
decrease substantially over the maintenance period. See Tables 8A-9C.
In addition, emissions inventories used in the RIA for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC and NH3 emissions for
the NNJ and SNJ areas are projected to decrease substantially from 2007
through 2020. See Tables 10A and 10B below. While the RIA emissions
inventories are only projected out to 2020, there is no reason to
believe that this downward trend would not continue through 2025. Given
that the NNJ and SNJ areas are already attaining the 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with the current level
of emissions from sources in the area, the downward trend of emissions
inventories would be consistent with continued attainment. Indeed,
projected emissions reductions for the precursors that the State is
addressing for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS indicate that the areas should continue to
attain the NAAQS following the precursor control strategy that the
state has already elected to pursue. Even if VOC and NH3
emissions were to increase unexpectedly between 2020 and 2025, the
overall emissions reductions projected in direct PM2.5,
SO2, and NOX would be sufficient to offset any
increases. For these reasons, EPA proposes to determine that local
emissions of all of the potential PM2.5 precursors will not
increase to the extent that they will cause monitored PM2.5
levels to violate the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5
standards during the maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions
inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
\18\ These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions
inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
Table 10A--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and NH3 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the NNJ Area \17\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NH3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2007 2020 2007-2020 2007 2020 2007-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 7,150 7,508 .............. 852 1,301 ..............
Area.................................................... 59,925 60,657 .............. 2,810 2,872 ..............
Nonroad................................................. 29,203 16,613 .............. 28 34 ..............
On-road................................................. 44,389 15,285 .............. 2,433 1,243 ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 140,667 100,063 -40,604 6,123 5,450 -703
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10B--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and NH3 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the SNJ Area \18\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NH3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2007 2020 2007-2020 2007 2020 2007-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 1,874 1,837 .............. 123 159 ..............
Area.................................................... 18,140 18,488 .............. 1,075 1,103 ..............
Nonroad................................................. 7,023 3,890 .............. 10 12 ..............
On-road................................................. 9,072 3,295 .............. 469 263 ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 36,109 27,150 -8,959 1,677 1,527 -150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 38668]]
In addition, available air quality modeling analyses show continued
maintenance of the standard during the maintenance period. The modeling
analysis conducted for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
indicates that the design value for this area is expected to continue
to decline through 2020. In the RIA analysis, the 2020 modeled design
value is 10.8 [mu]g/m\3\ for the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area, and 9.4
[mu]g/m\3\ for the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area. Given that precursor
emissions are projected to decrease through 2025, it is reasonable to
conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels in this area will also
continue to decrease through 2025.
Thus, EPA proposes to determine that there is ample justification
to conclude that the NNJ and SNJ areas should be redesignated, even
taking into consideration the emissions of other precursors potentially
relevant to PM2.5. After consideration of the D.C. Circuit's
January 4, 2013 decision, and for the reasons set forth in this notice,
EPA proposes to approve the State's maintenance plan and its request to
redesignate the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas to attainment for the
1997 PM2.5 annual and the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour
standards.
(d) Monitoring Network
New Jersey has committed to tracking the air quality for continued
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS, and will work with EPA prior
to making any changes to the existing PM2.5 air monitoring
network.
The State is obligated to work with EPA each year through the air
monitoring network review process, as required by 40 CFR Part 58 to
determine: (1) The adequacy of the PM2.5 monitoring network;
(2) if additional monitoring is needed; and (3) if/when sites can be
discontinued or relocated. Any changes to the monitoring network,
including replacing or moving monitor(s) to new locations, as
necessary, will be made through the air monitoring network review
process. This review process undergoes a public comment period, and is
subject to approval by the EPA. Air monitoring data will continue to be
quality assured according to requirements in 40 CFR Part 58.
EPA proposes to conclude that the State of New Jersey has met the
requirement for continuing to operate an appropriate air monitoring
network.
(e) Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the state
depends, in part, on the state's efforts towards tracking indicators of
continued attainment during the maintenance period. New Jersey's plan
for verifying continued attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS
consists of continued ambient PM2.5 air quality monitoring
in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58. New Jersey will
also continue to develop and submit periodic emission inventories as
required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (codified
at 40 CFR Part 51, subpart A).
EPA proposes to approve New Jersey's plans for verifying continued
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
(f) Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
such contingency provision as EPA deems necessary to ensure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation of the contingency measures, and a time limit for action
by the state. The state should also identify specific indicators to be
used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and
implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that the
state will implement all measures with respect to control of the
pollutant(s) that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the
area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
As required by section 175A of the CAA, New Jersey has included
contingency provisions in the maintenance plan to address possible
future annual PM2.5 air quality problems. New Jersey will
use the following triggers to determine the cause of elevated levels,
and implement contingency measures, as necessary, in accordance with
the described schedule:
1. If monitored PM2.5 concentrations in any year exceed
the level of the NAAQS, NJDEP will perform a data assessment to
determine the cause of the violation. This assessment will be performed
when the annual average PM2.5 concentration for the previous
year exceeds 15 [mu]g/m\3\ at any New Jersey monitoring site, or when
the 98th percentile of the 24-hour average daily concentrations exceeds
35 [mu]g/m\3\ at any New Jersey air monitoring site. NJDEP will perform
this evaluation within six months of the data certification. New Jersey
will work with the other states in its shared multi-state nonattainment
areas as necessary.
2. If annual or 24-hour PM2.5 design values exceed 15
[mu]g/m\3\ or 35 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively, NJDEP will evaluate all
appropriate data to determine the cause using the same analyses
discussed in Item number 1. NJDEP will perform this evaluation within
six months of the determination of a violation.
3. Based on any findings, New Jersey will make a judgment on
whether the violation was caused by an exceptional event or a violation
of an existing rule or permit. The State will rely on one or more of
the following contingency measures for any other violation:
--Onroad Vehicle Fleet Turnover
--Nonroad Vehicle and Equipment Fleet Turnover
--Low Sulfur Fuel Rule N.J.A.C. 7:27-9 (prior to July 2016)
--Diesel Retrofit Program, Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program,
N.J.A.C. 7:27-14 and 32
4. If necessary, New Jersey will evaluate the feasibility and
applicability of additional measures, how they relate to the cause and
location of the violation, and if these additional measures would
correct the violation. These may include:
--New control measures that have been adopted for other purposes
--Residential wood burning strategies
--Fugitive dust reductions at stationary sources
--Lower particulate limits for No. 6 fuel oil-fired boilers
--Lower particulate limits for stationary diesel engines
--Working with the local metropolitan planning agencies to implement
transportation control measures
NJDEP will perform this evaluation within six months of the
determination of a violation. If it is determined that a new rule is
required or appropriate to correct a violation of the NAAQS, NJDEP will
propose a new rule within 18 month, and take final action within 30
months, of the determination of a violation.
New Jersey is relying on existing measures, which are already
implemented, or have been adopted with future implementation dates, to
promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS. The state has also
included a commitment to further evaluate additional measures, if
necessary and appropriate. EPA proposes to find that the New Jersey
maintenance plan includes appropriate contingency measures to promptly
correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.
Maintenance Plan Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve
New Jersey's 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance
plan for the NNJ and
[[Page 38669]]
SNJ areas as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
VII. What is EPA's analysis of New Jersey's proposed NOX and
PM2.5 motor vehicle emission budgets?
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans,
programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must
``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state's air
quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. Conformity
to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestones. If a transportation
plan does not conform, most new projects that would expand the capacity
of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR Part 93 set forth
EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional
emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for
implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a
requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas.
Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas.
These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment
demonstrations) and maintenance plans create motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs or budgets) for criteria pollutants and/or their
precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR Part
93, an MVEB must be established for the last year of the maintenance
plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEB is the
portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance
demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and
emissions. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's
planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in
the preamble to the November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule
(58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in
the SIP and how to revise the MVEB.
New Jersey has developed MVEBs for both the NNJ and SNJ
nonattainment areas. The budgets are being established for both the
1997 annual and 2006 daily PM2.5 standards. New Jersey
determined that budgets based on annual emissions of direct
PM2.5 and NOX, a precursor, are appropriate for
the 2006 daily standard because exceedences of the standard were not
isolated to one particular season; therefore, the budgets established
by this maintenance plan will be used by transportation agencies to
meet conformity requirements for both the annual and daily standards.
New Jersey developed these MVEBs, as required, for the last year of
its maintenance plan, 2025, and an additional year, 2009, for the
purpose of establishing budgets for the near-term based on EPA's MOVES
model. Previously established and approved MVEBs had been based on
MOBILE6.2.
The 2009 MVEB was developed without an accompanying full emissions
inventory. EPA proposes to approve this approach that is consistent
with attainment and maintenance of both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards because of our earlier determinations that
both the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas had attained the
standards based on monitored air quality that included the year 2009
(see section II.A.).
The MVEBs for 2025 reflect the total on-road emissions for 2025,
plus an allocation from the available NOX and
PM2.5 safety margins. Under 40 CFR 93.101, the term ``safety
margin'' is the difference between the attainment level (from all
sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the
maintenance plan. The safety margin can be allocated to the
transportation sector; however, the total emissions must remain below
the attainment level. New Jersey chose to add 8% of the available
safety margin to both the PM2.5 and NOX budgets
for 2025 for both the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas. The
NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs and safety margin allocations
were developed in consultation with the transportation partners and
were added to accommodate expected future improvements to MOVES model
inputs and methodologies.
In the submittal, the State has also established ``sub-area
budgets'' for the two metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) within
the NNJ nonattainment area: the North Jersey Transportation Planning
Authority (NJTPA) and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
(DVRPC). These sub-area budgets allow each MPO to work independently to
demonstrate conformity by meeting its own PM2.5 and
NOX budgets. Each MPO must still verify, however, that the
other MPO currently has a conforming long range transportation plan and
transportation improvement program (TIP) prior to making a new plan/TIP
conformity determination. The MVEBs for both the NNJ and SNJ areas are
defined in Tables 11 (A thru D) below.
Table 11A--2009 PM[ihel2].[ihel5] and NOX MVEBs for NNJ for Both the
1997 Annual and 2006 Daily PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NAAQS
[Tons/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct
MPO/Subarea PM2.5 NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJTPA............................................. 2,736 67,272
DVRPC (Mercer County)............................. 224 5,835
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11B--2025 PM[ihel2].[ihel5] and NOX MVEBs for NNJ for Both the
1997 Annual and 2006 Daily PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NAAQS
[Tons/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct
MPO/Subarea PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJTPA..................................... 1,509 25,437
DVRPC (Mercer County)..................... 119 2,551
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11C--2009 PM[ihel2].[ihel5] and NOX MVEBs for SNJ for Both the
1997 Annual and 2006 Daily PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NAAQS
[Tons/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct
MPO PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DVRPC (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester 680 18,254
Counties)................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11D--2025 PM[ihel2].[ihel5] and NOX MVEBs for SNJ for Both the
1997 Annual and 2006 Daily PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NAAQS
[Tons/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct
MPO PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DVRPC (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester 363 8,003
Counties)................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, New Jersey has chosen to allocate a portion of
the available safety margin to the NOX and PM2.5
MVEBs for 2025. Details of this allocation are shown in Tables 12 (A
thru D) below.
[[Page 38670]]
Table 12A--Direct PM[ihel2].[ihel5] MVEB Safety Margin Allocation for NNJ
[Tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
reduction Safety
On-Road from all margin (8%
MPO/Subarea inventory sources, of total 2025 MVEB
for 2025 2007 to reduction)
2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJTPA.............................................................. 1,128 4,766 381 1,509
DVRPC (Mercer County).............................................. 90 358 29 119
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 12B--NOX MVEB Safety Margin Allocation for NNJ
[Tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
reduction Safety
On-Road from all margin (8%
MPO/Subarea inventory sources, of total 2025 MVEB
for 2025 2007 to reduction)
2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJTPA.............................................................. 18,626 85,142 6,811 25,437
DVRPC (Mercer County).............................................. 1,920 7,881 630 2,551
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 12C--Direct PM[ihel2].[ihel5] MVEB Safety Margin Allocation for SNJ
[Tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
reduction Safety
On-Road from all margin (8%
MPO/Subarea inventory sources, of total 2025 MVEB
for 2025 2007 to reduction)
2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DVRPC (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties)................ 278 1,056 85 363
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 12D--NOX MVEB Safety Margin Allocation for SNJ
[Tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
reduction Safety
On-Road from all margin (8%
MPO/Subarea inventory sources, of total 2025 MVEB
for 2025 2007 to reduction)
2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DVRPC (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties)................ 6,095 23,848 1,908 8,003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to approve the 2009 and 2025 MVEBs for
NOX and PM2.5 for NNJ and SNJ because EPA has
determined that the areas will maintain both the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS with on-road vehicle emissions capped at
the levels set by the budgets. EPA's review thus far indicates that the
budgets meet the adequacy criteria set forth by 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), as
follows:
(i) The submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan was endorsed by the Governor (or his or her designee)
and was subject to a State public hearing: The SIP revision was
submitted to EPA by the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, who is the Governor's designee.
(ii) Before the control strategy implementation plan or maintenance
plan was submitted to EPA, consultation among Federal, State, and local
agencies occurred; full implementation plan documentation was provided
to EPA; and EPA's stated concerns, if any, were addressed: New Jersey
conducted an interagency consultation process involving EPA and USDOT,
the New Jersey Department of Transportation and affected MPOs. All
comments and concerns were addressed prior to the final submittal.
(iii) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is clearly identified
and precisely quantified: The MVEB was clearly identified and
quantified and is reiterated here in Tables 11A-11D.
(iv) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered
together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with
applicable requirements for maintenance: Both the 2009 and 2025 MVEB
are less than the on-road mobile source inventory for 2007 that was
shown to be consistent with attainment and maintenance of the
standards. In addition, the 2009 budgets are for a year in which EPA
has determined that New Jersey attained the applicable air quality
standards and are therefore consistent with maintenance of the
respective standards.
(v) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is consistent with and
clearly related to the emissions inventory and
[[Page 38671]]
the control measures in the submitted control strategy implementation
plan revision or maintenance plan: The MVEB were developed from the on-
road mobile source inventories, including all applicable state and
Federal control measures. Inputs related to inspection and maintenance
and fuels are consistent with New Jersey's Federally-approved control
programs.
(vi) Revisions to previously submitted control strategy
implementation plans or maintenance plans explain and document any
changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures; impacts
on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety
margins (see Sec. 93.101 for definition); and reasons for the changes
(including the basis for any changes related to emission factors or
estimates of vehicle miles traveled): The submitted maintenance plan
establishes new 2009 and 2025 budgets to ensure continued maintenance
of the standards; therefore, this in not applicable.
Once the budgets are approved or found adequate (whichever is
completed first), they must be used for future conformity
determinations.
VIII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the
proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2009 and 2025
for Northern and Southern New Jersey?
When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein adequate for use in determining transportation conformity. Once
EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB must be used by state and
Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and our review of New Jersey's
submission in the context of these criteria was presented in section
VII. The process for determining adequacy consists of three basic
steps: Public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment
period, and EPA's adequacy determination. This process for determining
the adequacy of submitted MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes
was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, ``Conformity
Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court
Decision.'' EPA adopted regulations to codify the adequacy process in
the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity
Rule Amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule
Change,'' on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). Additional information on the
adequacy process for transportation conformity purposes is available in
the proposed rule entitled, ``Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes,''
68 FR 38974, 38984 (June 30, 2003).
As discussed earlier, New Jersey's maintenance plan submission
includes NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the NNJ and SNJ
maintenance areas for 2009 and 2025. EPA reviewed the NOX
and PM2.5 MVEBs through the adequacy process. The New Jersey
SIP submission, including the NOX and PM2.5
MVEBs, was open for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web site on
September 12, 2012, found at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The public comment period closed on October 12,
2012. EPA did not receive any comments on the adequacy of the MVEBs,
nor did EPA receive any requests for the SIP submittal.
EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2009
and 2025 MVEBs for NNJ and SNJ for transportation conformity purposes
in the near future by completing the adequacy process that was started
on September 12, 2012. After EPA finds the MVEBs adequate or approves
them, the new MVEBs for NOX and PM2.5 must be
used for future transportation conformity determinations.
IX. What action is EPA proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's request for redesignating
the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to attainment, because the State has
demonstrated compliance with the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E)
for redesignation. EPA has evaluated New Jersey's redesignation request
and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the monitoring data
demonstrate that the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas
has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
and will continue to attain the standard. Final approval of this
redesignation request would change the designation of the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas from nonattainment to attainment
for the 1997 PM2.5 annual and the 2006 PM2.5 24-
hour NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan for
the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas as a revision to
the New Jersey SIP. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2007
NH3, VOC, NOX, direct PM2.5 and
SO2 emissions inventories as meeting the comprehensive
emissions inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the 2009 and 2025 motor
vehicle emissions budgets for PM2.5 and NOX. EPA
is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National
[[Page 38672]]
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with
the Clean Air Act; and
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 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to 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.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 12, 2013.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2013-15147 Filed 6-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
