[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 241 (Friday, December 14, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74421-74434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30223]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2010-0482; [FRL-9762-2]]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans for 
PM2.5; New Jersey; Attainment Demonstration, Reasonably Available 
Control Measures; Base and Projection Year Emission Inventories, and 
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action 
on New Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for attaining 
the 1997 fine particle (PM2.5) national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS), which was submitted to EPA on April 1, 2009. EPA is 
proposing to fully approve elements of the New Jersey SIP for the New 
Jersey portion of two nonattainment areas in the State: The New York-N. 
New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT, PM2.5 nonattainment area, 
and the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE, PM2.5 
nonattainment area.
    EPA is taking action on several elements of the SIP, including 
proposed approval of New Jersey's attainment demonstration and motor-
vehicle emissions budgets used for transportation conformity purposes, 
as well as the Reasonably Available Control Technology and Reasonably 
Available Control Measures (RACT/RACM) analysis, and base-year and 
projection-year modeling emission inventories.
    This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act and 
the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule issued by EPA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 14, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2010-0482 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    3. Fax: 212-637-3901.
    4. Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, 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: Raymond 
Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's 
normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official 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-
2010-0482. 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

[[Page 74422]]

the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Do not submit through at www.regulations.gov, or email, 
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The at 
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 at 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 http://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 at 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, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding legal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Forde ([email protected]) 
concerning emission inventories and Kenneth Fradkin 
([email protected]) 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 action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. Designation History
    B. Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule
    C. Determinations of Attainment
III. What is included in New Jersey's attainment plan?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of New Jersey's attainment plan 
submittal?
    A. Attainment Demonstration
    1. Emission Inventory Requirements
    a. 2002 Modeling Base Year
    b. Modeling Projection Years
    c. Projection Methodology
    i. Major Point Sources
    (1) Electric Generating Units (EGUs)
    (2) Non-Electric Generating Units (Non-EGUs)
    ii. Area Sources
    iii. Non-Road Mobile Sources
    iv. On-Road Mobile Sources
    2. Pollutants Addressed
    3. Modeling
    B. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
    C. Reasonably Available Control Technology/Reasonably Available 
Control Measures (RACT/RACM)
    1. PM2.5 RACT
    2. PM2.5 RACM
    3. RACT/RACM Conclusion
    D. Contingency Measures
    E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
V. What is EPA's proposed action?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to fully 
approve elements of New Jersey's SIP submission (PM2.5 
attainment plan), which the State submitted to EPA on April 1, 2009, 
for attaining the 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for the New Jersey portion of the New York-N. New 
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT, PM2.5 nonattainment area 
(Northern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area), and the New 
Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE, 
PM2.5 nonattainment area (Southern New Jersey 
PM2.5 nonattainment area).
    This PM2.5 attainment plan includes New Jersey's 
attainment demonstration, motor-vehicle emissions budgets used for 
transportation conformity purposes, analysis of Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonably Available Control Measures 
(RACM), base-year and projection-year modeling emission inventories, 
and contingency measures.
    EPA is not making a determination at this time on whether the 
emission reductions from the contingency measures satisfy the 
requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Because 
EPA has determined that the areas have attained by the required 
attainment date in separate actions (75 FR 69589 and 77 FR 28782), no 
contingency measures for failure to attain by this date need to be 
implemented and further EPA action is unnecessary.
    New Jersey provided technical supplements to the attainment plan on 
December 17, 2009 and June 29, 2010 that provided additional 
information regarding the emission inventories, control measures, and 
contingency measures in the State's attainment plan.
    EPA has determined that elements of New Jersey's PM2.5 
attainment plan meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, as 
described in the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule issued by 
EPA on April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20586). EPA is proposing approval of New 
Jersey's attainment demonstration, motor-vehicle emissions budgets used 
for transportation conformity purposes, as well as the RACT/RACM 
analysis and base-year and projection-year modeling emission 
inventories. EPA's analysis and findings are discussed in this proposed 
rulemaking. In addition, the technical support document (TSD) for this 
proposal is available on-line at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-
R02-OAR-2010-0482. The TSD provides additional explanation of EPA's 
analysis supporting this proposal.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. Designation History

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA established the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS, including an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms 
per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) based on a 3-year average of annual 
mean PM2.5 concentrations and a 24-hour (or daily) standard 
of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 
24-hour concentrations. EPA established the standards based on 
significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that 
serious health effects are associated with exposures to 
PM2.5.
    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required 
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining 
or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in 
section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On January 5, 2005, EPA promulgated 
initial air-quality designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS

[[Page 74423]]

(70 FR 944), which became effective on April 5, 2005, based on air-
quality monitoring data for calendar years 2001-2003.
    The Northern and Southern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment 
areas, which are the subjects of this proposed rulemaking, are included 
in the list of areas not attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 
Northern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area consists of the 
following counties in the State of New Jersey: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, 
Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union 
Counties. The Southern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area 
consists of the following counties: Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester 
Counties in the State of New Jersey.
    Additional information concerning the designation history can be 
found in the TSD.

B. Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule

    On April 25, 2007, EPA issued the Clean Air Fine Particle 
Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (72 FR 20586). 
The Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule (PM2.5 
Implementation Rule) describes the CAA framework and requirements for 
developing state implementation plans for areas designated 
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. An attainment plan 
must include a demonstration that a nonattainment area will meet the 
applicable NAAQS within the timeframe provided in the statute. This 
demonstration must include modeling (40 CFR 51.1007) that is performed 
in accordance with EPA's ``Guidance on the use of Models and Other 
Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, 
PM2.5, and Regional Haze'' (EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007). 
It must also include supporting technical analyses and descriptions of 
all relevant adopted federal, state, and local regulations and control 
measures that have been adopted in order to provide attainment by the 
proposed attainment date.
    For the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, an attainment plan must show 
that a nonattainment area will attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 
as expeditiously as practicable, but within five years of designation 
(i.e. attainment date of April 2010 based on air quality data for 2007-
2009). If the area is not expected to meet the NAAQS by April 2010, a 
state may request to extend the attainment date by one to five years 
based upon the severity of the nonattainment problem or the feasibility 
of implementing control measures (CAA Section 172(a)(2)) in the 
specific area.
    For each nonattainment area, the state must demonstrate that it has 
adopted all RACM, including all RACT for the appropriate emission 
sources needed to provide for attainment of the PM2.5 
standards in the area ``as expeditiously as practicable.'' The 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule provided guidance for making these 
RACT/RACM determinations (see Section IV.C below). Any measures that 
are necessary to meet these requirements that are not already federally 
promulgated or in an EPA-approved part of the state's SIP must be 
submitted as part of a state's attainment plan. Any state measures must 
meet the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and, in 
particular, must be federally enforceable.
    The PM2.5 Implementation Rule also included guidance on 
other elements of a state's attainment plan, including, but not limited 
to, the pollutants that states must address in their submission, as 
well as emission inventories, contingency measures, and motor- vehicle 
emissions budgets used for transportation conformity purposes.
    Additional information concerning the PM2.5 
Implementation Rule can be found in the TSD.

C. Determinations of Attainment

    EPA makes two different types of attainment determinations for 
nonattainment areas. The first, a Determination of Attainment by the 
attainment date, is a determination of whether the area attained the 
NAAQS as of the area's applicable attainment deadline, which for 
PM2.5, is required by CAA section 179(c). The second is a 
Determination of Attainment for purposes of suspending a State's 
obligation to submit certain attainment-related planning SIP 
requirements (Clean Data Determination) (see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)). A 
Clean Data Determination and the suspension of requirements continue so 
long as the area continues to attain the NAAQS.
    EPA finalized determinations of attainment in the November 15, 2010 
Federal Register (75 FR 69589) that the New York-N. New Jersey-Long 
Island, NY-NJ-CT, PM2.5 nonattainment area (the NY-NJ-CT 
PM2.5 nonattainment area), had attained the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS, and had attained the NAAQS by its required 
attainment date of April 5, 2010. The determinations were based upon 
complete, quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient 
air monitoring data that showed that the area had monitored attainment 
of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 monitoring period 
by its attainment date of April 5, 2010. Ambient air monitoring data 
for 2010, 2011, and the first half of 2012 are consistent with 
continued attainment.
    As part of this rulemaking, EPA proposes to add regulatory language 
under Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
concerning the Determination of Attainment for the NY-NJ-CT 
PM2.5 nonattainment area by the April 5, 2010 attainment 
date. Although EPA had included regulatory language under Part 52, 
Subpart FF in the November 15, 2010 Federal Register (75 FR 69589) that 
the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA had inadvertently not included appropriate 
regulatory language that the area attained the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 by the applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. 
EPA will amend Part 52 as indicated if this proposed action is 
finalized.
    On May 16, 2012, EPA finalized determinations of attainment in the 
Federal Register (77 FR 28782) that the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-
DE, PM2.5 nonattainment area, referred to this point forward 
as the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area, had attained the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and had attained the NAAQS by its required 
attainment date of April 5, 2010. The determinations were based upon 
complete, quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient 
air monitoring data that showed that the area had attained the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS, based on ambient air monitoring data for the 
2007-2009 and 2008-2010 monitoring periods. Ambient air monitoring data 
for 2011 and the first half of 2012 are consistent with continued 
attainment.
    Under the provisions of EPA's PM2.5 Implementation Rule 
(40 CFR 51.1004(c)), the requirements for New Jersey to submit an 
attainment demonstration and associated RACM, reasonable further 
progress plan, and contingency measures related to attainment of the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Northern New Jersey 
PM2.5 nonattainment area and Southern New Jersey 
PM2.5 nonattainment area are suspended for as long as the 
areas continue to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, given the 
determinations of attainment for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 
nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment 
area.
    Although the requirements are suspended for the elements listed 
above for the state's attainment plan, and the state may withdraw the 
submitted elements, EPA proposes to approve the attainment 
demonstration, as well as the RACT/RACM analysis, which are approvable 
based on EPA's analysis. See sections IV and V regarding EPA's

[[Page 74424]]

analysis and the approvable elements of New Jersey's attainment plan 
submittal.

III. What is included in New Jersey's attainment plan?

    In accordance with Section 172(c) of the CAA and with the 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the attainment plan submitted by 
the State for the Northern and Southern New Jersey PM2.5 
nonattainment areas included: emission inventories for the plan's base 
year (2002) and projection year (2009); an attainment demonstration 
showing how the two nonattainment areas met the required April 5, 2010 
attainment date for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; an analyses 
of future-year emissions reductions and air-quality improvements 
expected to result from national and local programs and from new 
measures to meet RACT/RACM requirements; adopted emission-reduction 
measures with schedules for implementation; motor-vehicle emissions 
budgets for the nonattainment year; and contingency measures.
    To analyze future-year emissions reductions and air-quality 
improvements, New Jersey utilized the regional air quality modeling 
that was conducted for ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze. New 
Jersey first introduced this modeling in its 8-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration\1\ for modeling the ozone problem in the northeastern 
United States. The ozone season (May 1-September 30) photochemical 
modeling was combined with additional months of air quality modeling to 
predict attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This 
modeling was performed in accordance with EPA's modeling guidance (EPA-
454/B-07-002, April 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ New Jersey submitted the Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP 
on October 29, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of New Jersey's attainment plan submittal?

 A. Attainment Demonstration

1. Emission Inventory Requirements
    States are required under the CAA (section 172(c)(3)) to develop 
emissions inventories of point, area, and mobile sources for their 
attainment demonstrations. These inventories provide a detailed 
accounting of all emissions and emission sources by precursor or 
pollutant. In addition, inventories are used to model air quality to 
demonstrate that attainment of the NAAQS can be met by the deadline, 
which in this case is April 5, 2010 for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS. Emissions inventory guidance was provided in the April 1999 
document ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 
Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations,'' (EPA-454/R-
99-006), which was updated in November 2005 (EPA-454/R-05-001). 
Emissions reporting requirements were provided in the 2002 Consolidated 
Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) (67 FR 39602). On December 17, 2008 (73 
FR 76539) EPA promulgated the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements 
(AERR) to update emissions reporting requirements in the CERR, and to 
harmonize, consolidate and simplify data reporting by states.
    In accordance with the AERR and the November 2005 guidance, the 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule required states to submit 
inventory information on directly emitted PM2.5 and 
PM2.5 precursors and any additional inventory information 
needed to support an attainment demonstration and (where applicable) a 
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) plan.
    PM2.5 is comprised of filterable and condensable 
emissions. Condensable particulate matter (CPM) can comprise a 
significant percentage of direct PM2.5 emissions from 
certain sources, and is required to be included in national emission 
inventories based on emission factors. Test Methods 201A and 202 are 
available for source-specific measurement of condensable emissions. 
However, the PM2.5 Implementation Rule acknowledged that 
there were issues and concerns related to availability and 
implementation of these test methods as well as uncertainties in 
existing data for condensable PM2.5. In recognition of these 
concerns, EPA established a transition period during which EPA could 
assess possible revisions to available test methods and to allow time 
for States to update emission inventories as needed to address direct 
PM2.5, including condensable emissions. Because of the time 
required for this assessment, EPA recognized that States would be 
limited in how to effectively address CPM emissions, and established a 
period of transition, up to January 1, 2011, during which State 
submissions for PM2.5 were not required to address CPM 
emissions. Amendments to these test methods were proposed on March 25, 
2009 (74 FR 12969), and finalized on December 21, 2010 (75 FR 80118). 
The amendments to Method 201A added a particle-sizing device for 
PM2.5 sampling, and the amendments to Method 202 revised the 
sample collection and recovery procedures of the method to reduce the 
formation of reaction artifacts that could lead to inaccurate 
measurements of CPM.
    PM2.5 submissions made during the transition period are 
not required to address CPM emissions, however, States may, if they 
elect, establish source emission limits that include CPM for submittals 
made before January 1, 2011.
    In July 2008, Earth Justice filed a petition requesting 
reconsideration of EPA's transition period for CPM emissions provided 
in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule. In January 2009, EPA 
decided to allow states that have not previously addressed CPM to 
continue to exclude CPM for PSD permitting during the transition 
period. Today's action reflects a review of New Jersey's submittal 
based on current EPA guidance as described in the PM2.5 
Implementation Rule. New Jersey has included CPM emissions, which were 
added to filterable emissions, when determining final direct 
PM2.5 emissions for the 2002 Base Year and 2009 Projection 
Year PM2.5 inventories.
a. 2002 Modeling Base Year
    EPA proposed to approve New Jersey's 2002 Base Year inventories on 
May 9, 2006, (71 FR 26895) and approved the emission inventories on 
July 10, 2006 (71 FR 38770). The reader is referred to these 
rulemakings and the associated TSD for additional information 
concerning the emission inventories and EPA's approval.
    For purposes of developing a 2009 projection year inventory, New 
Jersey also developed a modeling base year inventory. Tables 1A and 1B 
below show the 2002 modeling base year PM2.5, nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission 
inventories for the Northern and Southern New Jersey PM2.5 
nonattainment areas.

[[Page 74425]]



                      Table 1A--2002 Northern New Jersey PM2.5 Modeling Base Year Inventory
                                                 [In tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pollutant                  Point           Area       Nonroad mobile   Onroad mobile       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5...........................           2,790           8,636           2,824           1,547          15,797
NOX.............................          34,432          18,428          42,661         102,997         198,518
SO2.............................          37,750           6,242           6,654           2,244          52,890
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Table 1B--2002 Southern New Jersey PM2.5 Modeling Base Year Inventory
                                                 [In tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pollutant                  Point           Area       Nonroad mobile   Onroad mobile       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5...........................             940           2,218             789             537           4,484
NOX.............................           6,682           3,624           8,207          29,986          48,499
SO2.............................           5,867           1,340           4,594             705          12,506
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Modeling Projection Years
    A projection of 2002 PM2.5, NOX, and 
SO2 anthropogenic emissions to 2009 is required to determine 
the emission reductions needed for inventory attainment demonstration. 
The 2009 modeling projection year emission inventories are calculated 
by multiplying the 2002 base year inventory by factors which estimate 
growth from 2002 to 2009. A specific growth factor for each source type 
in the inventory is required since sources typically grow at different 
rates.
c. Projection Methodology
i. Major Point Sources
(1) Electric Generating Units (EGUs)
    For this point source sector, the projected emissions inventories 
were first calculated by estimating growth in each source category. As 
appropriate, the 2002 emissions inventory was used as the base for 
applying factors to account for inventory growth. The point source 
inventory was grown from the 2002 inventory to 2009 for each facility 
using growth factors utilized in EPA's Integrated Planning Model (IPM) 
model to forecast growth based on the following variables/factors: 
Electric demand; natural gas, oil and coal supply forecasts; pollution 
control and performance; capacity cost and performance, and replacement 
of older less efficient and polluting power plants with newer more 
efficient units to meet future growth and state by state NOX 
and SO2 caps.
(2) Non-Electric Generating Units (Non-EGUs)
    For this point source sector, the projected emissions inventories 
were first calculated by estimating growth in each source category. As 
appropriate, the 2002 emissions inventory was used as the base for 
applying factors to account for inventory growth. The point source 
inventory was grown from the 2002 inventory to 2009 for each facility 
based on source classification codes using growth factors generated 
from EPA's Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) version 5.0, United 
States Department of Energy's (USDOE) Annual Energy Outlook Projections 
(AEO) 2005, and state specific population and employment data, where 
appropriate. Since these methodologies and growth indicators are some 
of the preferred growth indicators as outlined in EPA Guidance,\2\ EPA 
proposes that New Jersey's methodology for projecting point sources to 
be acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA's follow-up memo ``8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards Implementation--Reasonable Further Progress 
(RFP)'', dated August 2006; ``Guidance on the Use of Models and 
Other Analyses for Demonstration Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze'', dated April 2007; 
``Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections, and Control Strategies 
for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans'', dated March 1993; 
``Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate of Progress Plan and Attainment 
Demonstration'', dated January 1994; Emission Inventory Improvement 
Program guidance document titled ``Volume X, Emission Projections'', 
dated December 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Area Sources
    For the area source category, New Jersey projected emissions from 
2002 to 2009 using growth factors generated from USDOE AEO 2007, state 
specific population, employment data, and other state specific data 
where appropriate. This is in accordance with EPA's recommended growth 
indicators for projecting emissions for area source categories as 
outlined in EPA Guidance. Since these methodologies and growth 
indicators are some of the preferred growth indicators outlined in EPA 
Guidance,\2\ EPA proposes to find New Jersey's methodology for 
projecting area sources to be acceptable.
iii. Non-Road Mobile Sources
    Non-road vehicle and equipment emissions were projected from 2002 
to 2009 using the EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) 2005. 
NMIM 2005 contains growth factors, which are based on the historical 
trends in nonroad equipment activity. This model was used to calculate 
past and future emission inventories for all nonroad equipment 
categories except commercial marine vessels (CMV), locomotives and 
aircrafts. Emissions were determined on a monthly basis and combined to 
provide annual emission estimates.
    Aircraft, locomotives and CMV emissions were projected based on 
combined growth and control factors from USEPA Clean Air Interstate 
Rule (CAIR) by determining the level of emissions and their associated 
ratios between 2002 base and 2025 projection year. From this point, the 
State determined the ratio of emissions between 2002 and 2009 
projection year using linear interpolation. The ratios between 2002 and 
2009 were determined and then multiplied by the 2002 base year to 
determine 2009 projection year emissions.
    Since these methodologies and growth indicators are some of the 
preferred growth indicators outlined in EPA Guidance, EPA proposes to 
find New Jersey's methodology for projecting non-road mobile sources to 
be acceptable.
iv. Onroad Mobile Sources
    For the onroad mobile source category, the primary indicator and 
tool for developing on-road mobile growth and expected emissions are 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and USEPA's

[[Page 74426]]

mobile emissions model Mobile 6.2.03 (MOBILE6.2). The 2009 pollutant 
emission factors were generated by MOBILE6.2 (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. Since these 
methodologies and growth indicators are some of the preferred growth 
indicators outlined in EPA Guidance, EPA proposes to find New Jersey's 
methodology for projecting on-road mobile sources to be acceptable.
    Based on EPA's guidance, the 2009 modeling inventories are complete 
and approvable. A more detailed discussion on how the emission 
inventories were reviewed and the results are presented in the TSD. 
These documents provide further details and references on how 
projections were performed.
    Tables 2A and 2B show the 2009 modeling projection emission 
inventories controlled after 2002 using the aforementioned growth 
indicators/methodologies for the Northern and Southern New Jersey 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

            Table 2A--2009 Northern New Jersey PM2.5 Modeling Projection Year Inventory (Controlled)
                                                 [In tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pollutant                  Point           Area       Nonroad mobile   Onroad mobile       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5...........................           3,169           8,332           2,295             956          14,752
NOX.............................          13,378          16,502          33,714          50,097         113,691
SO2.............................          18,616           6,208           1,530             457          26,811
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


            Table 2B--2009 Southern New Jersey PM2.5 Modeling Projection Year Inventory (Controlled)
                                                 [In tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pollutant                  Point           Area       Nonroad mobile   Onroad mobile       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5...........................           1,265           2,073             690             308           4,336
NOX.............................           5,479           3,284           7,156          15,018          30,927
SO2.............................           3,289           1,331             982             110           5,712
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Pollutants Addressed
    In accordance with the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, New 
Jersey's PM2.5 attainment plan evaluates emissions of direct 
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX in the Northern 
and Southern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment areas. New 
Jersey's SIP submission indicated that it agreed with EPA policy where 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ammonia are not presumed to be 
PM2.5 attainment plan precursors.
3. Modeling
    All attainment demonstrations must include modeling that is 
performed in accordance with EPA's ``Guidance on the Use of Models and 
Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze'' (EPA-454/B-07-002, April 
2007). Modeling may be based on national (e.g., EPA), regional (e.g., 
Ozone Transport Commission), local modeling, or a combination thereof, 
if appropriate. A brief description of modeling used to support New 
Jersey's attainment demonstration follows. For more detailed 
information about this modeling, please refer to the TSD. Ambient 
PM2.5 typically includes both primary PM2.5 
(directly emitted) and secondary PM2.5 (e.g., sulfate and 
nitrate formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere). Some of the 
physicochemical processes leading to formation of secondary 
PM2.5 may take hours or days, as may some of the removal 
processes. Thus, some sources of secondary PM2.5 may be 
sources outside of the nonattainment area. To cover a sufficient 
geographic area to take these processes into account and to use state 
resources more efficiently, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) on 
behalf of its member states (which include New Jersey, New York, 
Connecticut, Delaware, and Pennsylvania) performed photochemical grid 
modeling for their multi-state nonattainment areas.
    The OTC Modeling Committee, which coordinated preparing and running 
the photochemical grid model, chose the Community Multi-scale Air 
Quality (CMAQ) model as the photochemical grid model of choice. Since 
the model predicts both ozone, and PM2.5 ambient 
concentrations, the same parameters were used in the modeling runs used 
to demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS. EPA concurs that this 
model is appropriate for modeling the formation and distribution of 
PM2.5. The model domain covered almost all of the eastern 
United States, with a high-resolution grid covering the states in the 
northeast ozone transport region, including New Jersey.
    Under the direction of the OTC Modeling Committee, several states 
and modeling centers performed the regional modeling runs and 
contributed to the regional modeling effort, including the New York 
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the Ozone 
Research Center at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of NJ/Rutgers 
(UMDNJ/ORC), the University of Maryland (UMD), the Northeast States for 
Coordinated Air Management (NESCAUM), and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air 
Management Agency (MARAMA). The NYSDEC ran the CMAQ model for the May 1 
through September 30 ozone season, which was supplemented by modeling 
runs performed by UMDNJ/ORC (March and April), NESCAUM (October, 
November, December), and the UMD (January, February), for the purposes 
of determining PM2.5 attainment.
    The OTC Modeling Committee used annual 2002 meteorology for the 
modeling analysis. 2002 was the base year for the attainment plans and 
the year of the emission inventory used in the base year modeling. The 
OTC Modeling Committee used a Mesoscale Meteorological model, (MM5) 
version 3.6, a weather forecast model developed by Pennsylvania State 
University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research for the 
weather conditions used by the photochemical grid model. Details about 
how the states used the MM5 model are in Appendix B3 of New Jersey's 
SIP submittal.
    States across the eastern United States provided emissions 
information from

[[Page 74427]]

their sources to be used in the model. MARAMA collected and quality 
assured the states' emissions data and processed these data for the 
photochemical grid model to use. The states also included the control 
measures that were already adopted as well as the control measures that 
the state was committing to adopt from a list of ``Beyond On the Way'' 
(BOTW) control measures, which would provide additional emission 
reductions. Emissions data for the model from outside the Northeast was 
obtained from other regional planning organizations. States provided 
projected emissions for 2009 that account for emission changes due to 
regulations the states plan to implement prior to 2009, as well as 
expected growth.
    Table 3 below lists the control measures that New Jersey took into 
account in the projected 2009 BOTW CMAQ run. See the TSD for the 
listing of the BOTW measures that would be implemented in other states 
in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), which New Jersey is a part of, to 
achieve benefits in 2009. Some states in the OTR have chosen to adopt 
different control strategies than New Jersey.

  Table 3--Modeled Control Measures Included in the 2009 BOTW Model Run
                             for New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Pre-2002 with Benefits Achieved Post-2002--On the Books
Federal
    Residential Woodstove New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Beyond Stage II
    Tier 1 Vehicle Program
    National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV)
    Tier 2 Vehicle Program/Low Sulfur Fuels
    Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV) Defeat Device Settlement
    HDDV Engine Standards
    Nonroad Diesel Engines
    Large Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines over 19 kilowatts
    Recreational Vehicles (includes Snowmobiles, Off-Highway
     Motorcycles, and All-Terrain Vehicles)
    Diesel Marine Engines over 37 kilowatts
    Phase 2 Standards for Small Spark-Ignition Handheld Engines at or
     below 19 kilowatts
    Phase 2 Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Non-Handheld
     Engines at or below
    19 kilowatts
    Acid Rain
                         Post-2002--On the Books
New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort
    Consumer Products 2005
    Architectural Coatings 2005
    Portable Fuel Containers 2005 (Area Source Only)
    Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing
    Solvent Cleaning
    NOX RACT Rule (2006)
    New Jersey Heavy Duty Diesel Rules Including ``Not-To-Exceed'' (NTE)
     Requirements
New Jersey Only
    Stage I and Stage II (Gasoline Transfer Operations)
    On-Board Diagnostics (OBD)--Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program
     for Gasoline Vehicles
Federal
    USEPA Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) Standards
    CAIR (NOX Controls in 2009 Only)
    Refinery Consent Decrees (Sunoco, Valero, and ConocoPhillips)
                        Post-2002--Beyond the Way
New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort
    Consumer Products 2009 Amendments
    Portable Fuel Containers 2009 Amendments (Area Source Only)
    Asphalt Paving
    Adhesives and Sealants
    Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boiler Rule 2009
New Jersey Only
    New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program
    Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Mercer)
    Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Hudson NOX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NOX emission reductions from the Clean Air Interstate 
Rule (CAIR) were included in the list of control measures that New 
Jersey took into account in the projected 2009 BOTW CMAQ run. EPA 
published CAIR on May 12, 2005 (76 FR 70093), to address the interstate 
transport requirements of the CAA. EPA approved New Jersey rules that 
allowed the State to allocate NOx allowances to New Jersey sources 
beginning in 2009, on October 1, 2007 (72 FR 55666).
    As originally promulgated, CAIR requires significant reductions in 
emissions of SO2 and NOx to limit the interstate transport 
of these pollutants. In 2008 the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia (DC Circuit) vacated and remanded CAIR, and the 
CAIR FIPs (71 FR 25328, April 28, 2006) finding it to be inconsistent 
with the requirements of the CAA. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 
(DC Cir. 2008). Following EPA's request for re-hearing, the court 
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur, finding that ``allowing CAIR 
to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with [the 
court's] opinion would at least temporarily preserve the environmental 
values covered by CAIR.'' North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178. 
CAIR and the CAIR FIPs remained in place and enforceable through the 
April 5, 2010, attainment date.

[[Page 74428]]

    In response to the court's decision, EPA issued a new rule to 
address interstate transport of emissions, ``Federal Implementation 
Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and 
Correction of SIP Approvals: Final Rule'' (known as the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule or Transport Rule). 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011. In the 
Transport Rule, EPA finalized regulatory changes to sunset (i.e., 
terminate) CAIR and the CAIR FIPs for control periods in 2012 and 
beyond. See 76 FR 48322.
    On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order addressing 
the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed 
by numerous parties seeking a stay of the Transport Rule pending 
judicial review. In that order, the DC Circuit stayed the Transport 
Rule pending the court's resolution of the petitions for review of the 
rule. EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated 
cases). The court also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to 
administer CAIR in the interim until the court rules on the petitions 
for review of the Transport Rule.
    On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit vacated the Transport Rule, 
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302, ruling that EPA 
had exceeded the agency's statutory authority. However, the decision on 
the Transport Rule does not disturb EPA's determination that it is 
appropriate to move forward with this proposed action. This action 
proposes to approve an attainment plan that demonstrated that the NY-
NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE 
PM2.5 nonattainment area would attain the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS by 2010, which it did, as discussed in section 
II.C. The air quality analysis conducted for the Transport Rule 
demonstrates that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area and 
the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area would be able to 
attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS even in the absence of 
CAIR or the Transport Rule. See Appendix B to the Air Quality Modeling 
Final Rule Technical Support Document for the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule.\3\ Nothing in the D.C. Circuit's August 2012 decision disturbs or 
calls into question that conclusion or the validity of the air quality 
analysis on which it is based. More importantly, the Transport Rule is 
not relevant to this action. The Transport Rule only addresses 
emissions in 2012 and beyond. As such, neither the Transport Rule 
itself, nor the vacatur of the Transport Rule, is relevant to the 
question addressed in this proposal notice. The purpose of this action 
is to determine whether the attainment plan submitted by New Jersey is 
sufficient to bring the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area 
and the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area into attainment by 
the April 2010 attainment date, a date before the Transport Rule was 
even promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The document is available at http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the status of CAIR after the April 2010 attainment date 
is also not relevant to this action since CAIR was in place and 
enforceable through the attainment date. CAIR was an enforceable 
control measure applicable to affected sources in the area, as well as 
sources throughout the Eastern United States. As such, the current 
status of CAIR is irrelevant to and does not impact our conclusion that 
the attainment plan should be approved. Moreover, in its August 2012 
decision, the Court also ordered EPA to continue implementing CAIR. See 
EME Homer City, slip op. at 60. For these reasons, neither the current 
status of CAIR nor the current status of the Transport Rule affects any 
of the criteria for proposed approval of this SIP revision.
    The control measures listed in Table 3 does not include additional 
measures, which the state had planned to implement by 2010, that would 
result in additional emissions reductions of direct PM2.5 
and precursors. These additional measures, shown in Table 4 below, 
which were not included in the photochemical grid modeling, and which 
have been subsequently adopted by the State, were submitted by New 
Jersey to provide additional evidence that the New Jersey associated 
nonattainment areas would attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the 
required April 5, 2010 attainment date.

Table 4--Control Measures Adopted by New Jersey Not Captured in the 2009
                             BOTW Model Run
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal
    New Nonroad Engine Standards
    Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less than
     30 Liters per Cylinder
    Energy Conservation Standards for New Federal Commercial and Multi-
     Family High-Rise Residential Buildings
State
    Diesel Idling Rule Changes
    Diesel Smoke (I/M Cutpoint) Rule Changes
    Case-by-Case NOX Limit Determinations (Facility-Specific Emission
     Limits/Alternative Emission Limits)
    Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) NOX Rule
    New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle Program from Fleet Turnover Post
     2009
    On-road Fleet Turnover and Non-Road Equipment Turnover Post 2009
    Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Hudson SO2)
    Nonattainment New Source Review
    Asphalt Production Plants Rule
    Glass Manufacturing
    High Electric Demand Day (HEDD Program)
    Oil and Gas Fired Electric Generating Units (EGU's) Rule (Portion
     Not Modeled from Consent Decrees)
    Sewage Sludge Incinerators
    NOX RACT Rule 2006 (Portion Not Modeled)
    ICI Boiler Rule 2009 (Portion Not Modeled)
    Low Sulfur Distillate and Residual Fuel Strategies
    Smoke Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, New Jersey is relying on ``modeled'' control measures 
to demonstrate that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area 
and the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area would reach 
attainment by April 5, 2010, and has

[[Page 74429]]

also included additional ``non-modeled'' measures as additional support 
for attainment and continued attainment.
    EPA provided guidance to states and tribes for projecting 
PM2.5 concentrations using a ``speciated modeled attainment 
test'' (SMAT) (EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007). EPA also provided a 
software program (Model Attainment Test Software ``MATS'') that allows 
calculation of future year PM2.5 design values using the 
SMAT assumptions contained in the modeled guidance\4\. MATS uses the 
following PM2.5 species: sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, 
directly emitted inorganic particles, elemental carbon, organic carbon, 
particle bound water, and blank mass (and optionally salt). Once 
modeling for a projection year and a base year is complete, relative 
response factors (RRFs) are computed for sulfate, nitrate, directly 
emitted inorganic particles, elemental carbon, and organic carbon. For 
each monitoring location, the quarterly RRF for a component is computed 
as the ratio of the projection year divided by the base year modeled 
concentration for a three-by-three array of modeled grid cells centered 
on the monitoring location. The projection year concentrations are 
calculated by multiplying quarterly base year concentrations by the RRF 
for each PM2.5 component. The sum of the estimated 
projection year component concentrations is the estimated projection 
year PM2.5 concentration. If future estimates of 
PM2.5 concentrations are less than the 1997 NAAQS, then the 
modeling indicates attainment of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ MATS is available at: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/modelingapps_mats.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PM2.5 includes a mixture of components that can behave 
independently from one another (e.g., primary vs. secondary particles) 
or that are related to one another in a complex way (e.g., different 
secondary particles). Thus, it is appropriate to consider 
PM2.5 as the sum of its major components. As recommended in 
EPA's modeling guidance, New Jersey divided PM2.5 into its 
major components and noted the effects of a strategy on each. The 
effect on PM2.5 was estimated as a sum of the effects on 
individual components. Future PM2.5 design values at 
specified monitoring sites were estimated by adding the future- year 
values of the seven PM2.5 (sulfates, nitrates, ammonium, 
organic carbon, elemental carbon, particle bound water, other primary 
inorganic particulate matter) components.
    For the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area, all future 
site-specific PM2.5 design values were below the 
concentration specified in the NAAQS. The highest value predicted in 
the nonattainment area was from the monitor located on Broad Street in 
Philadelphia, PA, and the predicted value was 13.9 [micro]g/m\3\. 
Therefore, the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area passed the 
SMAT.
    For the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area, future site-
specific PM2.5 design values were below the concentration 
specified in the NAAQS with the exception of the PS59 monitoring site 
located in New York County. The projected 2009 value of 15.3 [micro]g/
m\3\ for PS59 was within the weight-of-evidence (WOE) range of values, 
14.5 [micro]g/m\3\ to 15.5 [micro]g/m\3\, as defined in the 
PM2.5 modeling guidance (EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007).
    New Jersey used a multi-analysis and WOE approach to support the 
results from the modeled attainment test. In addition to the speciated 
modeled attainment test, New Jersey presented the following 
information, which is further described in the TSD, to demonstrate 
attainment by April 5, 2010:
     Air monitoring data measured from 2000 to 2006 at 
monitoring sites in both the PA-NJ-DE and the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 
nonattainment areas showed declining ambient PM2.5 
concentrations;
     Technical information from a New York State WOE 
presentation concerning the PS59 monitoring site: incomplete data in 
the third quarter of 2003 due to construction work at the site, and 
lack of collocated speciation data, may have resulted in an estimate of 
PM2.5 being above the level of the NAAQS at the PS59 
monitor;
     Additional measures from New York that were not 
represented in the projection inventories for 2009 and that will 
contribute to attainment at the PS59 monitor; and
     Additional measures from New Jersey that were not included 
in the projection year inventories for 2009 that would likely lead to 
PM2.5 concentration below the 2009 modeled design values and 
support New Jersey's demonstration of attainment of the 
PM2.5 NAAQS in its two multistate nonattainment areas.
    As a result of this WOE review, New Jersey concluded that the State 
of New Jersey, and the New Jersey associated nonattainment areas will 
attain the 1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS by the required 2010 
attainment date.
    Complete, quality assured, quality controlled, and certified air 
quality data from 2007-2009, 2008-2010, and 2009-2011 are available for 
air monitors in both New Jersey associated PM2.5 
nonattainment areas. Under EPA's modeling guidance, this data would be 
considered evidence to be weighed in a WOE process.
    EPA published a Federal Register (75 FR 69589) on November 15, 2010 
finding that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area had 
attained the PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon monitored attainment 
during the 2007-2009 monitoring period. Ambient air monitoring data for 
2008-2010 and for 2009-2011 show continued attainment. EPA had reviewed 
ambient air monitoring data for PM2.5 consistent with the 
requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50 and recorded in the EPA Air 
Quality System (AQS) database. The 3-year averages of the annual mean 
PM2.5 concentrations are less than the NAAQS of 15.0 
[micro]g/m\3\. Table 5 shows the design values by county for the NY-NJ-
CT PM2.5 nonattainment area PM2.5 monitors for 
the years 2001 through 2011. Overall, county design values continued to 
decline across the nonattainment area through 2011. As shown in Table 
5, the column labeled 06-08 DV indicates that, beginning in 2006-2008, 
all county design values have been below the NAAQS of 15.0 [micro]g/
m\3\.

 Table 5--Design Values by County for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-NJ-CT Monitors in Micrograms per Cubic Meter ([micro]g/m\3\). The Standard
                                                     for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS Is 15.0 ug/m\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        County                         01-03  DV  02-04  DV  03-05  DV  04-06  DV  05-07  DV  06-08  DV  07-09  DV  08-10  DV  09-11  DV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronx................................................       15.7       15.2       15.7       15.1       15.5       14.3       13.9       12.5       11.9
Kings................................................       14.7       14.2       14.6       14.0       14.0       12.9       12.2       10.8       10.3
Nassau...............................................       12.2       11.7       12.1       11.5       11.4       10.9       10.3        9.5        8.9

[[Page 74430]]

 
New York.............................................       17.5       16.7       17.0       15.7       15.9       14.9       14.0       12.1       11.7
Orange...............................................       11.5       11.1       11.4       10.8       10.8       10.0        9.3        8.5        8.2
Queens...............................................        INC       12.8       12.7       12.1       11.8       11.3       10.6       10.0        INC
Richmond.............................................       12.0       11.5       11.8       13.4       13.2       12.4       11.6       10.5        8.5
Rockland.............................................         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM
Suffolk..............................................       12.1       11.3       11.5        INC        INC       10.5        9.7        8.9        8.4
Westchester..........................................       12.3       11.7       11.9       11.6       11.7       11.2       10.6        9.6        9.1
Bergen...............................................        INC       12.8       13.3       12.8       13.2       12.2       11.3        9.8        9.2
Essex................................................        INC       13.5        INC       13.2       13.3        INC        INC        INC        INC
Hudson...............................................       14.7       14.3       14.7       14.1       14.0       14.1       13.1       11.6       11.1
Mercer...............................................       13.8       13.0       13.0       12.7       12.5       11.9       10.8       10.0        9.7
Middlesex............................................       12.4       11.8       12.5       11.8       12.1       11.3       10.4        8.8        7.9
Monmouth.............................................         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM
Morris...............................................        INC       11.6       11.9       11.2       11.3       10.3        9.6        8.7        8.5
Passaic..............................................        INC       12.9       13.1       12.6       12.9       12.3       11.3        9.8        INC
Somerset.............................................         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM
Union................................................       15.5       15.3       15.5       14.8       14.4       13.6       12.6       11.6       11.4
Fairfield............................................       13.1       12.7       13.3       13.2       13.2       12.4       11.3       10.0        9.4
New Haven............................................       13.9       13.4       13.5       13.0       12.8       12.2       11.4       10.3        9.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM--No monitor located in county.
INC--Incomplete data for time period. All counties listed as INC for time period did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement.
Note: The air monitor at the Newark Willis Center station in Essex County was discontinued on July 24, 2008 due to an unexpected loss of access, and
  replaced with a new monitor at the Newark Firehouse. PM2.5 monitoring was established at the firehouse on May 13, 2009. The monitors in Queens and
  Passaic had incomplete data due to instrument malfunction, and/or insufficient sampling frequency in one quarter.

    On May 16, 2012, EPA finalized in the Federal Register (77 FR 
28782) a determination that the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment 
area had attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon ambient 
air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 monitoring periods. 
The 3-year averages of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations 
are less than the NAAQS of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Table 6 shows the design 
values by county for the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area 
monitors for the years 2001 through 2011. As shown in Table 6, the 
column labeled 04-06 DV indicates that ambient air monitoring data has 
been less than or equal to the NAAQS, beginning in 2004-2006.

 Table 6--Design Values by County for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the PA-NJ-DE Monitors in Micrograms per Cubic Meter ([mu]g/m\3\). The Standard for
                                                     the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS Is 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        County                         01-03  DV  02-04  DV  03-05  DV  04-06  DV  05-07  DV  06-08  DV  07-09  DV  08-10  DV  09-11  DV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Castle...........................................       16.2       15.3       15.1       14.8       14.7       14.2       13.0       11.7       10.7
Camden...............................................        INC       13.7       13.8       13.3       13.5       12.7       11.7       10.3        9.7
Gloucester...........................................       13.5       12.8       13.5        INC        INC        INC       11.4       10.0        INC
Burlington...........................................         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM         NM
Bucks................................................       14.3       13.9       13.9       13.2       13.2       12.6       12.2       11.3       10.9
Chester..............................................        INC        INC       15.2        INC        INC        INC       13.9       13.8        INC
Delaware.............................................       15.4       15.1       15.7       15.0       15.0       14.1       13.7       13.3       12.9
Montgomery...........................................       14.1        INC        INC        INC        INC       12.3       11.7       10.5       10.1
Philadelphia.........................................       16.2       15.4       15.2        INC        INC        INC       13.0       12.0       11.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM--No monitor located in county.
INC--Incomplete data for time period. All counties listed as INC for time period did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement. The monitor in
  Gloucester had incomplete data due to instrument malfunction, and/or insufficient sampling frequency in one quarter.

    EPA proposes to find that the attainment demonstration modeling to 
be acceptable. New Jersey has followed EPA's modeling guidance, and 
demonstrated through modeling and the weight-of-evidence process that 
the area would reach attainment by April 5, 2010.

B. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

    The PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires a State to submit 
a separate RFP plan for any area for which the State justifies an 
extension of the attainment date beyond 2010. Areas that demonstrate 
attainment of the standard by 2010 are considered to have satisfied the 
requirement to show reasonable further progress toward attainment and 
need not submit a separate RFP plan. There are separate RFP 
requirements for those nonattainment areas with attainment dates beyond 
2010.
    Since New Jersey has submitted an attainment demonstration that 
shows attainment by the 2010 deadline, thus satisfying the RFP 
requirement, a separate RFP plan is not necessary.

C. Reasonably Available Control Technology/Reasonably Available Control 
Measures (RACT and RACM)

    As described in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, EPA is 
requiring a combined approach to RACT and

[[Page 74431]]

RACM. Under this approach, RACT and RACM are those measures that a 
state finds are both reasonably available and contribute to attainment 
``as expeditiously as practicable'' in a specific nonattainment area. 
By definition, measures that do not help an area attain the NAAQS ``as 
expeditiously as practicable'' are not required RACT/RACM.
    In the preamble to the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, EPA 
provided a recommended list of the types of source categories and types 
of control measures that may be appropriate for evaluation, based upon 
the local source mix and attainment needs of a specific area. In order 
to establish that the target attainment date is as expeditious as 
practicable, it is necessary to evaluate the combination of measures 
that could advance the attainment date. A state's attainment plan must 
include a list of measures considered and information sufficient to 
show that a state met all requirements for determination of RACT/RACM.
    Determination of RACT/RACM is a three-step process: (1) Identifying 
technically and economically feasible measures and associated emissions 
reductions, (2) conducting air-quality modeling and related analyses, 
and (3) selecting RACT/RACM. Identification of potential measures must 
be based on an inventory of emissions of directly emitted 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from the range of 
relevant sources and source categories.
    Technical feasibility refers to whether there are available 
measures capable of reducing emissions of PM2.5 or 
PM2.5 precursors or both. A number of factors are considered 
in this analysis, such as process and operating conditions, raw 
materials, physical plant layout, non-air quality and energy impacts, 
and the time needed to install and operate controls.
    Economic feasibility refers to whether the cost of a measure is 
reasonable for the regulated entity. A number of factors are considered 
in this analysis, such as cost per ton of pollution reduced, economic 
effects on a facility and on the local economy. The cost per ton for 
previous measures is an indicator of reasonableness; however, the 
ability of a facility to absorb costs may differ for different source 
categories. The guiding principle is that the selected RACT/RACM does 
not exclude any group of reasonable controls that together could 
advance the attainment date by at least a year.
    New Jersey's RACT/RACM analysis for potential control measures was 
divided into two parts: A PM2.5 RACT Assessment for existing 
major stationary point sources, and a RACM analysis for additional 
point, area, on-road mobile sources and off-road sources.
1. PM2.5 RACT
    New Jersey used several venues in its effort to identify potential 
emission reductions. New Jersey held a public workshop entitled 
``Reducing Air Pollution Together'' and established technical 
workgroups to obtain input on the stringency of existing requirements 
and evaluate potentially new RACT controls for significant emission 
reductions of NOX, VOC, SO2, and 
PM2.5. This was followed by state participation in regional 
control development efforts, and an internal NJDEP assessment of RACT 
controls. The recommendations from these efforts were further evaluated 
by NJDEP's Air Quality Management team, and resulted in a list of 
approximately 60 potential control measures.
    Each control measure was subsequently evaluated based on 
information collected regarding emission benefits, implementation 
issues, cost-effectiveness, and existing controls. White papers were 
developed and utilized to further inform the decision for determining 
RACT control measures.
    NJDEP conducted a review of current state and federal requirements 
such as New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) 7:27-4, NJAC 7:27-6, and 
7:27-9, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), Maximum Available 
Control Technology (MACT), and an evaluation of whether existing 
controls at the time of installation were previously considered Best 
Available Control Technology (BACT), Lowest Available Emission Rate 
(LAER) or State of the Art (SOTA). In addition NJDEP evaluated other 
states' regulations, such as those in effect in California, and 
information listed in the USEPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC).
    Table 7 lists the RACT source categories for which the State 
adopted as new or revised measures along with the targeted pollutants 
and affected rules and categories. They were also included in New 
Jersey's ozone SIP since they also targeted precursors for ozone. The 
ozone SIP revision was approved by EPA on May 15, 2009 (74 FR 22837). 
New Jersey adopted all of the rules listed in Table 7 on or before 
March 20, 2009.
    The Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Boilers measure 
identified as a RACT measure by New Jersey was also included in the 
regional photochemical grid modeling to demonstrate attainment. 
Although not included in the regional modeling (except partially 
through EGU consent decrees), the other measures listed in Table 7 
provide additional emission reduction benefits and are included as WOE 
measures to provide additional evidence that the New Jersey associated 
nonattainment areas would attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Section IV.A.3 and the TSD provide further discussion on the control 
measures used to demonstrate attainment by New Jersey.
    There were no additional PM-specific RACT measures available that 
would qualify as RACM since they could not be implemented early enough 
to advance the attainment date.

                                                             Table 7--New Jersey PM2.5 RACT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Targeted Pollutants
         Candidate source categories          --------------------------------------------------------                   Affected rules
                                                    NOX           VOC           SO2          PM2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asphalt Pavement Production Plants...........            X   ............  ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-19.9.
Glass Manufacturing Furnaces.................            X   ............            X             X   NJAC 7:27-19.2, 19.10.
Industrial, Commercial & Institutional                   X   ............  ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-19.7.
 Boilers.
Coal-Fired EGU Boilers.......................            X   ............            X             X   NJAC 7:27-4, 10 & 19.4.
Oil and Gas-Fired EGUs.......................            X   ............  ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-19.4.
High Electrical Demand Day EGUs..............            X   ............  ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-19.4, 19.5, & 19.29.
Case by Case, Facility-Specific Emission                 X             X   ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-16.17 & 19.13.
 Limit & Alternative Emission Limit.
Municipal Waste Combustors (incinerators) NOX            X   ............  ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-19.12.
 rule.
Sewage Sludge Incinerators...................            X   ............  ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-19.28.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 74432]]

2. PM2.5 RACM
    The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), in 
consultation with the NJDEP, identified 26 measures to be evaluated as 
prospective mobile source measures that could be considered reasonably 
available control measures. After identifying these measures, NJDOT 
analyzed each measure for its potential emissions reduction benefit, 
economic feasibility, technological feasibility, practicability and 
potential adverse impact. NJDOT analyzed each prospective emission 
control measure for each nonattainment area. One measure, School Bus 
Replacement of model years 2002 and older to be replaced with model 
year 2007 buses, passed on all RACM criteria, but could not be 
implemented early enough to advance the attainment date from 2010 to 
2009. The measure would have needed to be in place by 2008 to achieve 
reductions in 2009.
    NJDEP reviewed a variety of sources of information, such as, those 
from regional planning organizations, other state organizations, 
existing NJDEP documents, EPA regional efforts, and New Jersey State 
organizations to develop a list of 628 potential non-transportation 
control measures (non-TCMs). Over 250 potential control measures were 
developed from New Jersey's ``Reducing Air Pollution Together.'' White 
papers were developed and utilized to further inform the decision for 
determining RACM control measures. Fifteen non-TCMs passed all RACM 
criteria but could not be implemented by 2008.
    New Jersey noted in its SIP revision that they intended to pursue 
other measures which will help the state attain the new 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. These measures include lowering the sulfur 
content of fuel oil, which has since been adopted by the state. EPA 
approved revisions to New Jersey's Subchapter 9, Sulfur in Fuels rule, 
on January 3, 2012 as part of EPA's approval of the New Jersey Regional 
Haze SIP.\5\ This rule will reduce the sulfur content in all distillate 
heating oil (No.2 and lighter distillate fuel) to 500 parts per million 
(ppm) by July 1, 2014 and to 15 ppm by July 1, 2016. The adopted rule 
will also reduce the sulfur content in No.4 fuel oil to a consistent 
2,500 ppm throughout the State and reduce the sulfur content in No.5, 
No.6, and heavier fuel oil to 5,000 ppm or less on July 1, 2014. New 
Jersey estimated \6\ a total SO2 emission reduction in 2014 
and 2016 from the new sulfur in fuel standards of 1,544 tons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Federal Register notice: 77 FR 19 (January 3, 2012).
    \6\ New Jersey Register notice: 41 N.J.R. 4156 (November 16, 
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. RACT/RACM Conclusion
    EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's evaluation of the RACT/
RACM control measures for the Northern and Southern New Jersey 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
    EPA has reviewed the RACT/RACM analysis submitted by New Jersey and 
finds that there were no additional measures that would have advanced 
the area attainment date of April 5, 2010.
    As noted previously, the most current monitoring data for the 
Northern and Southern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment areas 
indicates that the areas are attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
EPA's guidance for the PM2.5 Implementation Rule recommended 
that if an area was predicted through the attainment plan to attain the 
standards within five years after designation, then the State would not 
need to conduct and submit additional RACM/RACT analyses. In light of 
the fact that the Northern and Southern New Jersey PM2.5 
nonattainment areas are now attaining the standards, EPA proposes to 
conclude that the attainment plan meets the RACT/RACM requirements of 
the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, and that the level of control 
in the State's attainment plan constitutes RACM/RACT for purposes of 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the PM2.5 
Implementation Rule defines RACT/RACM as that level of control that is 
necessary to bring the area into attainment, the current level of 
federally enforceable controls on sources located within the area is by 
definition RACT/RACM for these areas for this purpose. New Jersey's 
demonstration for attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is based on 
the federally enforceable control measures identified in New Jersey's 
April 1, 2009 SIP submittal and listed in this rulemaking's table 3 
titled, ``Modeled control measures included in the 2009 BOTW Model Run 
for New Jersey'', table 4 titled, ``Control Measures Adopted by New 
Jersey Not Captured in the 2009 BOTW Model Run'', and table 7 titled, 
``New Jersey PM2.5 RACT.

D. Contingency Measures

    In accordance with section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, the 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires that PM2.5 
attainment plans include contingency measures. Contingency measures are 
additional measures to be implemented in the event that an area fails 
to meet RFP or fails to attain a standard by its attainment date. These 
measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that can be 
implemented quickly if the area fails to meet RFP or fails to attain by 
its attainment date, and should contain trigger mechanisms and an 
implementation schedule. In addition, they should be measures not 
already included in the SIP control strategy and should provide for 
emission reductions equivalent to one year of RFP.
    The attainment plan for the Northern and Southern New Jersey 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas included contingency measures, 
shown in Table 8 below, to be implemented if the areas failed to attain 
by the required attainment date.

                                                Table 8--New Jersey PM2.5 Attainment Contingency Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Targeted pollutants
       New Jersey contingency measures        --------------------------------------------------------                   Affected rules
                                                    NOX           VOC           SO2          PM2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel Idling................................            X   ............  ............            X   NJAC 7:27-14.1, 14.3.
Asphalt Production Plants Rule...............            X   ............  ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-19.9.
Onroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Fleet             X   ............  ............            X   Federal Tier 2 and 2007 Heavy Duty Diesel
 Turnover 2010).                                                                                        Standards, NJAC 7:27-29.
Nonroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Fleet            X   ............            X             X   Federal 2004 Nonroad Diesel Rule.
 Turnover 2010).
Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) NOX            X   ............  ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-19.12, 19.13.
 Rule.
NOX RACT Rule 2006 (Portion Not Modeled).....            X   ............  ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-19.

[[Page 74433]]

 
Controls from EGU and Refinery Consent         ............  ............            X   ............  Not applicable (i.e., Consent Decree).
 Decrees (Additional Emissions Reductions).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All Federal and State contingency measures identified in the 
attainment plan have been adopted and implemented. EPA has previously 
approved the State rules listed in Table 8 into the SIP during previous 
agency actions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Federal Register notices: 72 FR 41626 (July 31, 2007), 73 FR 
8200 (February 13, 2008), 74 FR 17781 (April 17, 2009), 75 FR 45483 
(August 3, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in section II.C of this proposed rulemaking, EPA has 
finalized the determination that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 
nonattainment area had attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based 
on complete, quality-assured, quality controlled, certified ambient air 
monitoring data for the 2007-2009 monitoring period. EPA has also 
finalized the determination that the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 
nonattainment area had attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based 
on complete, quality-assured, quality controlled, certified ambient air 
monitoring data for the 2007-2009, and 2008-2010 monitoring periods. 
Because EPA is determining that the areas are attaining by its 
applicable attainment date, in accordance with CAA 179(c)(1), no 
contingency measures for failure to attain by this date need to be 
implemented, and further EPA action is unnecessary. Furthermore, as set 
forth in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, areas that attained 
the NAAQS by the attainment date are considered to have satisfied the 
requirement to show RFP, and as such do not need to implement 
contingency measures to make further progress to attainment. Since the 
NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE 
PM2.5 nonattainment area have attained by the required 
attainment date, contingency measures submitted by New Jersey are no 
longer necessary to meet RFP requirements or attain the annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date, and further EPA action 
is unnecessary. Regardless of this determination, New Jersey has 
already adopted and implemented the control measures listed in Table 8.

E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    The CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance 
areas to ``conform to'' the goals of SIPs. This means that such actions 
will not: Cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, worsen the 
severity of an existing violation, or delay timely attainment of any 
NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding 
or approval are subject to the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 
part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan planning 
organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate 
with state air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, and FHWA and 
FTA to demonstrate that their long-range transportation plans (plans) 
and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to applicable 
SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated emissions 
from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or 
equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) contained in a 
SIP.
    In its submittal, New Jersey established three sets of budgets for 
the two MPOs within the two PM2.5 nonattainment areas in New 
Jersey. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is a 
bi-state MPO that covers four counties in New Jersey and five in 
Pennsylvania. Of its four New Jersey counties, three counties 
(Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester) are part of the Southern New 
Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area.
    Because conformity is determined on a nonattainment area basis 
within a state, New Jersey established budgets for direct 
PM2.5 and NOX (a PM2.5 precursor) for 
these three combined counties. DVRPC would use these budgets to satisfy 
conformity requirements within the Southern New Jersey PM2.5 
nonattainment area.
    New Jersey has also established separate ``sub-area budgets'' for 
the remaining DVRPC county (Mercer) and the nine counties covered by 
the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) that lie 
within the Northern New Jersey PM2.5 nonattainment area. 
Though the MPOs belong to the same nonattainment area within the state, 
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 plan and TIP prior to making a new 
plan/TIP conformity determination.
    New Jersey has determined that other potential PM2.5 
precursors (VOC, SO2, and NH3) are not 
significant and has not set budgets for them. In addition, New Jersey 
analyzed monitoring data and determined that re-entrained road dust and 
construction dust do not significantly contribute to PM2.5 
concentrations, and therefore has not set budgets for either road or 
construction dust. Table 9 lists New Jersey's submitted budgets.

                      Table 9--2009 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Submitted by New Jersey
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Nonattainment area                                  MPO                       PM2.5         NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern New Jersey.........................  North Jersey Transportation Planning              842       44,321
                                               Authority.
Northern New Jersey.........................  Delaware Valley Regional Planning                 105        5,323
                                               Commission (Mercer County only).
Southern New Jersey.........................  Delaware Valley Regional Planning                 341       17,319
                                               Commission (Burlington, Camden, and
                                               Gloucester Counties).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 74434]]

    For motor vehicle emissions budgets to be approvable, they must 
meet, at a minimum, EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). EPA 
made an adequacy determination on New Jersey's 2009 budgets on June 14, 
2010 (75 FR 33614). In our Notice of Adequacy we found that the budgets 
complied with the adequacy criteria listed at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). When 
EPA determines that budgets are adequate for transportation conformity, 
we note that an adequacy finding does not imply that budgets will 
ultimately be approved. Consistent with our adequacy review of New 
Jersey's submittal and our subsequent thorough review of the entire SIP 
submission, EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's 2009 budgets.
    The budgets that New Jersey submitted were calculated using the 
MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emissions model. EPA is proposing to approve 
the inventory and the conformity budgets calculated using this model 
because this model was the most current model available at the time New 
Jersey was performing its analysis. Separate from today's proposal, EPA 
has issued an updated motor vehicle emissions model known as the Motor 
Vehicle Emission Simulator or MOVES. In its announcement of this model, 
EPA established a grace period for continued use of MOBILE6.2 in 
transportation conformity determinations for transportation plans and 
TIPs, after which states and metropolitan planning organizations (other 
than California) must use MOVES for transportation plan and TIP 
conformity determinations. (See 75 FR 9411 (March 2, 2010); 77 FR 11394 
(Feb. 27, 2012)).
    Additional information on the use of MOVES in SIPs and conformity 
determinations can be found in the December 2009 Policy Guidance on the 
Use of MOVES2010 for State Implementation Plan Development, 
Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes. This guidance document 
is available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/420b09046.pdf. 
During the conformity grace period, the State and MPO(s) should use the 
interagency consultation process to examine how MOVES2010a will impact 
their future transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations, 
including regional emissions analyses. For example, an increase in 
emission estimates due to the use of MOVES2010a may affect an area's 
ability to demonstrate conformity for its transportation plan and/or 
TIP. Therefore, state and local planners should carefully consider 
whether the SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget(s) should be revised 
with MOVES2010a or if transportation plans and TIPs should be revised 
before the end of the conformity grace period, since doing so may be 
necessary to ensure conformity determinations in the future.
    We would expect that states and metropolitan planning organizations 
would work closely with EPA and the local Federal Highway 
Administration and Federal Transit Administration offices to determine 
an appropriate course of action to address this type of situation if it 
is expected to occur. If New Jersey chooses to revise its 
PM2.5 attainment plan, it should consult Question 7 of the 
December 2009 Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for State 
Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other 
Purposes for information on requirements related to such revisions.

V. What is EPA's proposed action?

    EPA is proposing to approve several elements of New Jersey's 
attainment plan including New Jersey's attainment demonstration and 
motor-vehicle emissions budgets used for transportation conformity 
purposes, as well as the RACT/RACM analysis, and base-year and 
projection-year modeling emission inventories.
    EPA has determined that the SIP meets the applicable requirements 
of the CAA, as described in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule. 
Specifically, EPA has determined that New Jersey's SIP includes an 
attainment demonstration and adopted state regulations and programs 
needed to support a determination that the Northern New Jersey 
PM2.5 nonattainment area and the Southern New Jersey 
PM2.5 nonattainment area have attained the NAAQS by the 
April 2010 deadline.

VI. 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 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 6, 2012.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region II.
[FR Doc. 2012-30223 Filed 12-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P