[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38648-38672]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15147]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0889; FRL-9827-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of New Jersey; Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes and Approval of the Associated Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New
Jersey. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
is requesting that EPA redesignate the New Jersey portion of the New
York-N.New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area, and the New
Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE nonattainment
area, from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006
24-hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). In conjunction with its redesignation request, New
Jersey submitted a SIP revision containing a maintenance plan for the
areas that provides for continued maintenance of the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The maintenance plan includes the
2007 attainment year emissions inventory that EPA is proposing to
approve in this rulemaking in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
    EPA is also proposing to approve a supplement to the 2007
attainment year emission inventory previously submitted by the State as
part of the SIP revision. EPA is proposing that the inventories for
ammonia (NH3) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) that were
submitted as part of the supplement, in conjunction with the
inventories for nitrogen oxides (NOX), direct
PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) that were
previously submitted, meet the comprehensive emissions inventory
requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the 2009 and 2025 motor
vehicle emissions budgets for PM2.5 and NOX.
    EPA previously determined that the New Jersey portions of the New
York-N.New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT and Philadelphia-Wilmington,
PA-nonattainment areas have attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the
request for redesignation for the 1997 annual and 24-hour 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, the maintenance plan, and the 2007 attainment
year inventory based on EPA's determination that the areas have met the
redesignation requirements set forth in the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2012-0889 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Planning Section, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Richard
Ruvo, Chief, Air Planning Section, Air Programs Branch, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's
official business hours is Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2012-0889. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at 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 www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office,
Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York
10007-1866. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view
the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Forde<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
concerning emission inventories and Kenneth Fradkin
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>concerning other portions of the SIP
revision, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?
    A. General
    B. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR or the Transport Rule)
III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
IV. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?
V. What is the effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Decision
Regarding PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4?
    A. Background

    B. Proposal on This issue
VI. What is EPA's analysis of New Jersey's redesignation request?
    A. Attainment
    B. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA
    C. Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
    D. The Air Quality Improvement Must Be Permanent and Enforceable
    E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
VII. What is EPA's analysis of New Jersey's proposed NOX
and PM2.5 motor vehicle emission budgets?
VIII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the
proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2009 and 2025
for Northern and Southern New Jersey?
IX. What action is EPA proposing to take?
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?

    On December 26, 2012, the State of New Jersey, through NJDEP,
submitted a request to redesignate the New Jersey portion of the New
York-N.New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area (``NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area''), and the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-
Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area (``PA-NJ-DE nonattainment
area'') from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, NJDEP submitted a
maintenance plan for the areas as a SIP revision to ensure continued
attainment. In a supplemental submission to EPA on May 3, 2013, the
State of New Jersey submitted NH3 and VOC emissions
inventories to supplement the emissions inventories that had been
submitted on December 26, 2012.
    EPA is proposing to take several actions pursuant to the
redesignation of the New Jersey portion of the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-
DE nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find that the New Jersey
portion of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as
the Northern New Jersey PM2.5 ``or NNJ'' nonattainment area)
and the New Jersey portion of the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the Southern New Jersey PM2.5 ``or
SNJ'' nonattainment area) meet the requirements for redesignation under
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to approve New Jersey's
request to change the legal definition of the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment
areas from nonattainment to attainment. This action does not impact the
New York and Connecticut portions of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area,
or the Pennsylvania and Delaware portions of the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment
area. EPA may take separate actions on those portions of the
nonattainment areas in a separate rulemaking.
    EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the NNJ
and SNJ nonattainment areas as a revision to the New Jersey SIP. Such
approval is one of the CAA criteria for redesignation of an area to
attainment. The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued
attainment in the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for 10 years after
redesignation. The maintenance plan includes the 2007 attainment year,
2017 interim year, and 2025 end year projection emission inventories.
EPA is also proposing to approve the 2009 and 2025 motor vehicle
emissions budgets for PM2.5 and Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX).
    In this proposed redesignation, EPA takes into account the D.C.
Circuit January 4, 2013 decision remanding to EPA the ``Final Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and
the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final
rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008), Natural Resources Defense Council v.
EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
    EPA's analysis for these proposed actions is discussed in sections
V, VI and VII of today's proposed rulemaking action.

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

A. General

    The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were
promulgated on July 18, 1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated an annual
standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\),
based on a three-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. In the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour
standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a three-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR
61144, EPA retained the annual average standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\ but
revised the 24-hour standard to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on the
three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
    On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, and supplemented on April 14,
2005, at 70 FR 19844, EPA designated the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas as nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 air
quality standards. In that action, EPA defined the NNJ nonattainment
area to include Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth,
Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union Counties; and defined the SNJ
nonattainment area to include Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester
Counties. On November 13, 2009, at 74 FR 58688, EPA promulgated
designations for the 24-hour standard set in 2006, designating the NY-
NJ-CT nonattainment area and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
nonattainment area boundaries for the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS were identical to the boundaries
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, containing the same counties as
listed above. EPA did not promulgate designations for the annual
average NAAQS promulgated in 2006 since that NAAQS was essentially
identical to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Today's action
addresses the designation for the annual NAAQS promulgated in 1997, and
the 24-hour NAAQS promulgated in 2006, for the NNJ and the SNJ
nonattainment areas.
    In the final rulemaking action dated November 15, 2010 (75 FR
69589), EPA determined, pursuant to CAA section 179(c), that the entire
NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area had attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon quality assured, quality controlled,
and certified ambient air monitoring data for the period of 2007-2009.
On May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28782), EPA determined that the entire PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment area was attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, based upon quality assured, quality controlled, and certified
ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 monitoring
periods.
    EPA finalized, on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76867), the
determination that the entire NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area had attained
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon quality assured,
quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data that
showed that the area had monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 monitoring
periods. On January 7, 2013 (78 FR 882), EPA finalized the
determination that the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area had attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon quality assured,
quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data that
showed that the areas had monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2008-2010 and 2009-2011 monitoring
periods.
    The 3-year ambient air quality data for the last three year
monitoring periods for the 2007-2009, 2008-2010, and 2009-2011
indicated no violations for

the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Preliminary design values for 2010-2012 also indicate no violations for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As a
result of the monitoring data continuing to show attainment, on
December 26, 2012 New Jersey requested redesignation of the NNJ and the
SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Under
the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if
sufficient, complete, quality-assured data is available for the
Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard and
the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements under
107(d)(3)(E).

B. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Cross State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR or the Transport Rule)

    On May 12, 2005, EPA published CAIR, which requires significant
reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOX from
electric generating units (EGUs) to limit the interstate transport of
these pollutants and the ozone and PM2.5 they form in the
atmosphere. See 70 FR 25162. The D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR,
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178
(D.C. Cir. 2008). In response to the D.C. Circuit's decision, EPA
issued the Transport Rule, also known as CSAPR, to address interstate
transport of NOX and SO2 in the eastern United
States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate
CSAPR. In that decision, it also ordered EPA to continue administering
CAIR ``pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for
rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and other parties have filed
petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, but those petitions
have not been acted on to date. Nonetheless, EPA intends to continue to
act in accordance with the EME Homer City opinion.
    As explained below, EPA proposes that New Jersey has demonstrated
that the attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS will be maintained with or without the
implementation of CAIR or CSAPR. New Jersey's maintenance plan does not
include the emission reductions from either program in the permanent
and enforceable Federal and State control measures needed for
attainment and continued maintenance. In addition, air quality modeling
analysis conducted during the CSAPR rulemaking process also
demonstrated that the counties in the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas will have PM2.5 levels below the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in both 2012 and 2014
without taking into account emissions reductions from CAIR or CSAPR.
See ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document'' \1\,
App. B, B-18, B-19. This modeling is also available in the docket for
this proposed redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The document is available at http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are the criteria for redesignation?

    Under the CAA, designations can be revised if sufficient data is
available to warrant such revisions. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
identifies five specific requirements that an area must meet in order
to be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment.
    1. The area must have attained the applicable NAAQS.
    2. The area must meet all applicable requirements under section 110
and part D of the CAA.
    3. The area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110 (k) of
the CAA.
    4. The air quality improvement must be permanent and enforceable.
    5. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the CAA.
    EPA has provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (April
16, 1992, 57 FR 13498, and supplemented on April 28, 1992, 57 FR 18070)
and has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests
in the following documents:
    1. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the
``Calcagni Memorandum'');
    2. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response
to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
    3. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
    4. ``Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS,'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, March 2, 2012.

IV. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?

    EPA's approval of the redesignation request, if made final, would
change the official designation of the NNJ and the SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81. It
would incorporate into the New Jersey SIP a maintenance plan ensuring
continued attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS until 2025. The maintenance plan includes,
among other elements, contingency measures to remedy any future
violations, should they occur, of the 1997 annual PM2.5 and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Approval of the 2007 base year
emissions inventory, which is part of the maintenance plan, will
satisfy the inventory requirements under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

V. What is the effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit decision
regarding PM2.5 implementation under subpart 4?

A. Background

    As discussed in section I, on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ``Final
Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25,
2007) and the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program
for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)''
final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule''). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
The Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation
provisions of subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the CAA, rather than
the particulate-matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of
Title I. Although the Court's ruling did not directly address the 2006
PM2.5 standard, EPA is taking into account the Court's
position on subpart 4 and the 1997 PM2.5 standard in
evaluating redesignations for the 2006 standard.

B. Proposal on This Issue

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Court's January 4, 2013
decision does not prevent EPA from redesignating the NNJ and SNJ
nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Even in light of the Court's decision,

redesignation for this area is appropriate under the CAA and EPA's
longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions regarding
redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation that
requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a complete
redesignation request is submitted for an area that is attaining the
standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request.
    Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4
requirements to the New Jersey redesignation request and disregards the
provisions of its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule recently
remanded by the Court, the State's request for redesignation of this
area still qualifies for approval. EPA's discussion takes into account
the effect of the Court's ruling on the area's maintenance plan, which
EPA views as approvable when subpart 4 requirements are considered.
1. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Evaluating the Redesignation
Request
    With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the
Court's January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA's reasons for implementing
the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the provisions of
subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it could address
implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of
part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of
evaluating New Jersey's redesignation request for the areas, to the
extent that implementation under subpart 4 would impose additional
requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA believes that
those requirements are not ``applicable'' for the purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not required to consider subpart
4 requirements with respect to the New Jersey redesignation. Under its
longstanding interpretation of the CAA, EPA has interpreted section
107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold matter, that the part D provisions
which are ``applicable'' and which must be approved in order for EPA to
redesignate an area include only those which came due prior to a
state's submittal of a complete redesignation request. See Calcagni
memorandum referenced in section III. See also SIP Requirements for
Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
on or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993
(Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR
12459, 12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final Redesignation of St. Louis,
Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-25427, May 12, 2003); Sierra Club v. EPA,
375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA's redesignation
rulemaking applying this interpretation and expressly rejecting Sierra
Club's view that the meaning of ``applicable'' under the statute is
``whatever should have been in the plan at the time of attainment
rather than whatever actually was in the plan and already implemented
or due at the time of attainment'').\2\ In this case, at the time that
New Jersey submitted its redesignation request, requirements under
subpart 4 were not due, and indeed, were not yet known to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent
to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain
applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required
as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the NNJ and SNJ
redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time the
State submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the EPA's
interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas
redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit's decision in South Coast
Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South
Coast, the Court found that EPA was not permitted to implement the 1997
8-hour ozone standard solely under subpart 1, and held that EPA was
required under the statute to implement the standard under the ozone-
specific requirements of subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the South
Coast decision, in evaluating and acting upon redesignation requests
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that were submitted to EPA for areas
under subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding interpretation of the CAA
that ``applicable requirements'', for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation, are those that had been due at the time the
redesignation request was submitted. See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation
of Manitowoc County and Door County Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047,
22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, EPA therefore did not
consider subpart 2 requirements to be ``applicable'' for the purposes
of evaluating whether the area should be redesignated under section
107(d)(3)(E).
    EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of CAA section
107(d)(3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be
redesignated, a state must meet ``all requirements `applicable' to the
area under section 110 and part D''. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides
that the EPA must have fully approved the ``applicable'' SIP for the
area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support
EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' as only those requirements that
came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request.
First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA
requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation
request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or
impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with
the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section
107(d)(3)(D). If ``applicable requirements'' were interpreted to be a
continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states,
after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously
to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to
undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those
submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that
would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-month
timeframe provided by the Act for this purpose.
    Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which
a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for
redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
    In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the
Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA compound the
consequences of imposing requirements that come due

after the redesignation request is submitted. The State submitted its
redesignation request on December 26, 2012, but the Court did not issue
its decision remanding EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule
concerning the applicability of the provisions of subpart 4 until
January 2013.
    To require the State's fully-completed and pending redesignation
request to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 that the Court
announced only in January, 2013, would be to give retroactive effect to
such requirements when the State had no notice that it was required to
meet them. The D.C. Circuit recognized the inequity of this type of
retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir.
2002),\3\ where it upheld the District Court's ruling refusing to make
retroactive EPA's determination that the St. Louis area did not meet
its attainment deadline. In that case, petitioners urged the Court to
make EPA's nonattainment determination effective as of the date that
the statute required, rather than the later date on which EPA actually
made the determination. The Court rejected this view, stating that
applying it ``would likely impose large costs on States, which would
face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention
plans . . . even though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at
68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize the State of New
Jersey by rejecting its redesignation request for an area that is
already attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards and that
met all applicable requirements known to be in effect at the time of
the request. For EPA now to reject the redesignation request solely
because the state did not expressly address subpart 4 requirements of
which it had no notice, would inflict the same unfairness condemned by
the Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and distinguished in a
recent D.C. Circuit decision that addressed retroactivity in a quite
different context, where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to
give its regulations retroactive effect. National Petrochemical and
Refiners Ass'n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing
denied 643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Subpart 4 Requirements and New Jersey Redesignation Request
    Even if EPA were to take the view that the Court's January 4, 2013
decision requires that, in the context of pending redesignations,
subpart 4 requirements were due and in effect at the time the State
submitted its redesignation request, EPA proposes to determine that the
NNJ and SNJ areas still qualify for redesignation to attainment. As
explained below, EPA believes that the redesignation request for the
NNJ and SNJ areas, though not expressed in terms of subpart 4
requirements, substantively meets the requirements of that subpart for
purposes of redesignating the area to attainment.
    With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the NNJ and SNJ areas, EPA
notes that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1 of part D,
which contains general air quality planning requirements for areas
designated as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself
contains specific planning and scheduling requirements for
PM10 \4\ nonattainment areas, and under the Court's January
4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also
apply for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding
general guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making
recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for
SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, ``State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clear Air Act
Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (the ``General
Preamble''). In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of
subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart
1 requirements were to an extent ``subsumed by, or integrally related
to, the more specific PM-10 requirements.'' 57 FR 13538 (April 16,
1992). The subpart 1 requirements include, among other things,
provisions for attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control
measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), emissions
inventories, and contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of this redesignation, in order to identify any
additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, we are
considering the NNJ and SNJ areas to be ``moderate'' PM2.5
nonattainment areas. Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas designated
nonattainment areas under subpart 4 would initially be classified by
operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas, and would remain
moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA reclassifies the area
as a ``serious'' nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA believes that it
is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential impact of
subpart 4 requirements to those that would be applicable to moderate
nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to
moderate nonattainment areas and include the following: (1) An approved
permit program for construction of new and modified major stationary
sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an attainment demonstration
(section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C));
and (4) quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by
the applicable attainment date (section 189(c)).
    The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not
itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1. In any event,
in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment new source review
program is not considered an applicable requirement for redesignation,
provided the area can maintain the standard with a prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program after redesignation. A detailed
rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' See also rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66
FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-
31837, June 21, 1996).
    With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under
subpart 4,\5\ when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either
subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is attaining the PM2.5
standard is viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning
requirements for these subparts. For redesignations, EPA has for many
years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for
areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ i.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone
requirements, contingency measures.

    The requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request
for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality
data for the area must show that the area has already attained.
Showing that the

State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
meaning at that point.

``General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990''; (57 FR 13498, 13564, April 16, 1992).
    The General Preamble also explained that

    [t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring
RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no
longer apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible
for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans .
. . provides specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for
these areas.

Id.

EPA similarly stated in its 1992 Calcagni memorandum that, ``The
requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures needed
for attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only have
meaning for areas not attaining the standard.''
    It is evident that even if we were to consider the Court's January
4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that attainment-related
requirements specific to subpart 4 should be imposed retroactively and
thus are now past due, those requirements do not apply to an area that
is attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, for the
purpose of evaluating a pending request to redesignate the area to
attainment. EPA has consistently enunciated this interpretation of
applicable requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) since the General
Preamble was published more than twenty years ago. Courts have
recognized the scope of EPA's authority to interpret ``applicable
requirements'' in the redesignation context. See Sierra Club v. EPA,
375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
    Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, EPA has
viewed the obligations to submit attainment-related SIP planning
requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that EPA determines
are attaining the standard. EPA's prior ``Clean Data Policy''
rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also governed by the
requirements of subpart 4, explain EPA's reasoning. They describe the
effects of a determination of attainment on the attainment-related SIP
planning requirements of subpart 4. See ``Determination of Attainment
for Coso Junction Nonattainment Area,'' (75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010).
See also Coso Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, (75 FR
36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); Proposed and Final Determinations of
Attainment for San Joaquin Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 40954-
40955, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 63641, 63643-63647 October 30, 2006).
In short, EPA in this context has also long concluded that to require
states to meet superfluous SIP planning requirements is not necessary
and not required by the CAA, so long as those areas continue to attain
the relevant NAAQS.
    Elsewhere in this action, EPA proposes to determine that the NNJ
and SNJ areas continue to attain the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
standards. Under its longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to
determine here that the areas meet the attainment-related plan
requirements of subparts 1 and 4.
    Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit
an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination
under section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration
under 189(c)(1), and contingency measure requirements under section
172(c)(9) are satisfied for purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request.
3. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
    The DC Circuit in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at
issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them
consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this section
addresses the Court's opinion with respect to PM2.5
precursors. While past implementation of subpart 4 for PM10
has allowed for control of PM10 precursors such as
NOX from major stationary, mobile, and area sources in order
to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, CAA section
189(e) specifically provides that control requirements for major
stationary sources of direct PM10 shall also apply to
PM10 precursors from those sources, except where EPA
determines that major stationary sources of such precursors ``do not
contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the
standard in the area.''
    EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule, remanded by the DC
Circuit, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning certain
PM2.5 precursors applicable to attainment plans and control
measures related to those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA
provided, among other things, that a state was ``not required to
address VOC [and NH3] as . . . PM2.5 attainment
plan precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and NH3]
emissions in the State for control measures.'' EPA intended these to be
rebuttable presumptions. EPA established these presumptions at the time
because of uncertainties regarding the emission inventories for these
pollutants and the effectiveness of specific control measures in
various regions of the country in reducing PM2.5
concentrations. EPA also left open the possibility for such regulation
of VOC and NH3 in specific areas where that was necessary.
    The Court in its January 4, 2013 decision made reference to both
section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated that, ``In light of our
disposition, we need not address the petitioners' challenge to the
presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic compounds and
NH3 are not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4
expressly governs precursor presumptions.'' NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10.
    Elsewhere in the Court's opinion, however, the Court observed:

    NH3 is a precursor to fine particulate matter, making
it a precursor to both PM2.5 and PM10. For a
PM10 nonattainment area governed by subpart 4, a
precursor is presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. Sec.  7513a(e)
[section 189(e)].

Id. at 21, n.7.
    For a number of reasons, EPA believes that its proposed
redesignation of the NNJ and SNJ areas is consistent with the Court's
decision on this aspect of subpart 4. First, while the Court, citing
section 189(e), stated that ``for a PM10 area governed by
subpart 4, a precursor is `presumptively regulated,' '' the Court
expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to EPA's 1997
PM2.5 implementation rule provisions regarding
NH3 and VOC as precursors. The Court had no occasion to
reach whether and how it was substantively necessary to regulate any
specific precursor in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area,
and did not address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon
a redesignation request.
    However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of
subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the state submitted the
redesignation request, and disregards the implementation rule's
rebuttable presumptions regarding NH3 and VOC as
PM2.5 precursors (and any similar provisions reflected in
guidance for the 2006 PM2.5 standard), the regulatory
consequence would be to consider the need for regulation of all
precursors from any sources in the area to demonstrate attainment and
to apply the section 189(e) provisions to major stationary sources of
precursors. In the case of the NNJ and SNJ areas EPA believes that
doing so is consistent with proposing redesignation of the areas for
the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. The NNJ
and SNJ areas have attained the standard without any specific
additional controls of VOC and

NH3 emissions from any sources in the area.
    Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the
provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important
exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors.\6\ Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior
implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM2.5
precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of
NH3 and VOC. Thus we must address here whether additional
controls of NH3 and VOC from major stationary sources are
required under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the
area for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
As explained below, we do not believe that any additional controls of
NH3 and VOC are required in the context of this
redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for purposes of
demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as practicable, a state is
required to evaluate all economically and technologically feasible
control measures for direct PM emissions and precursor emissions,
and adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538-13542. With regard to precursor
regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated
that control of VOCs under other Act requirements may suffice to
relieve a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section
189(e). 57 FR 13542. EPA in this proposal proposes to determine that
the SIP has met the provisions of section 189(e) with respect to
NH3 and VOCs as precursors. This proposed determination is
based on our findings that (1) the NNJ and SNJ areas contain no major
stationary sources of NH3, and (2) existing major stationary
sources of VOC are adequately controlled under other provisions of the
CAA regulating the ozone NAAQS.\7\ In the alternative, EPA proposes to
determine that, under the express exception provisions of section
189(e), and in the context of the redesignation of the area, which is
attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, at present
NH3 and VOC precursors from major stationary sources do not
contribute significantly to levels exceeding the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards in the NNJ and SNJ areas. See 57 FR 13539-
42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The NNJ and SNJ areas have reduced VOC emissions through the
implementation of various control programs including VOC Reasonably
Available Control Technology regulations and various on-road and
non-road motor vehicle control programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of
PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP
plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast,
redesignation to attainment primarily requires the area to have already
attained due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and to
demonstrate that controls in place can continue to maintain the
standard. Thus, even if we regard the Court's January 4, 2013 decision
as calling for ``presumptive regulation'' of NH3 and VOC for
PM2.5 under the attainment planning provisions of subpart 4,
those provisions in and of themselves do not require additional
controls of these precursors for an area that already qualifies for
redesignation. Nor does EPA believe that requiring New Jersey to
address precursors differently than they have already would result in a
substantively different outcome.
    Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of
precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a
redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4
requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for
PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans
that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control
purposes.\8\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of
subpart 4 for PM10.\9\ EPA believes that application of this
approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is reasonable.
Because the NNJ and SNJ areas have already attained the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to regulation of
PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to
conclude in the context of this redesignation that there is no need to
revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to the treatment
of precursors. Even if the Court's decision is construed to impose an
obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to consider
additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect EPA's
approval here of New Jersey's request for redesignation of the NNJ and
SNJ areas. In the context of a redesignation, the areas have shown that
they have attained the standards. Moreover, the State has shown and EPA
is proposing to determine that attainment in these areas are due to
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions on all precursors
necessary to provide for continued attainment. It follows logically
that no further control of additional precursors is necessary.
Accordingly, EPA does not view the January 4, 2013 decision of the
Court as precluding redesignation of the NNJ and SNJ areas to
attainment for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans for California--San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area;
Serious Area Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM-10
Standards,'' 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) (approving a PM10
attainment plan that impose controls on direct PM10 and
NOX emissions and did not impose controls on
SO2, VOC, or ammonia emissions).
    \9\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, even if New Jersey were required to address precursors for
the NNJ and SNJ areas under subpart 4 rather than under subpart 1, as
interpreted in EPA's remanded PM2.5 implementation rule, EPA
would still conclude that the area had met all applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section
107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v).

VI. What is EPA's analysis of New Jersey's redesignation request?

    In an effort to comply with the CAA and to ensure continued
attainment of the NAAQS, on December 26, 2012, the State of New Jersey
submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
    The following is a description of how the state has fulfilled each
of the CAA redesignation requirements.

A. Attainment

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). In this action for this
rulemaking, EPA is proposing to determine that the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-
NJ-DE nonattainment areas are continuing to attain the 1997 annual and
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
    An area may be considered to be attaining the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS if it meets the NAAQS as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.7 and Appendix N of part 50, based on three
complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. To attain this standard, the three-year average of
annual means must be less than or equal to 15 [mu]g/m\3\ at all
relevant monitoring sites in the subject area. The relevant data must
be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and

recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors meet data
completeness requirements when ``at least 75 percent of the scheduled
sampling days for each quarter have valid data.'' The use of less than
complete data is subject to the approval of EPA, which may consider
factors such as monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence,
and nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such data.
    As noted in section IIA above, EPA has finalized determinations
that the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas had attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has also reviewed more recent
quality-assured data for both NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment
areas. The ambient air monitoring data submitted by New Jersey shows
PM2.5 concentrations attaining the annual PM2.5
NAAQS for the 2009-2011 time period for both nonattainment areas.
    Table 1, below, shows the design value by county (i.e., 3-year
average) of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations) for the 2009-
2011 time period for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-
NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area monitors. Table 2, below,
shows the design value for the 2009-2011 time period for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area
monitors. Preliminary design values\10\ for the 2010-2012 time period
is also shown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ All data for 2012 has been quality-assured.

                                Table 1--Design Value Concentrations for the NY-NJ-CT 1997 Annual PM2.5 Area ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                                            [The standard is 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Annual mean concentrations              Preliminary     2011 3-year     Preliminary
                                                         ------------------------------------------------   annual mean    annual design    2012 3-year
                                                                                concentration       value       annual design
               Nonattainment area counties                                                               --------------------------------      value
                                                               2009            2010            2011                                      ---------------
                                                                                2012          2009-2011       2010-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW JERSEY:
    Bergen..............................................             9.1             8.8             9.8             8.9             9.2             9.2
    Essex...............................................             INC             9.2            10.5             9.0             INC             9.5
    Hudson..............................................            10.8            10.6            11.8            10.9            11.1            11.1
    Mercer..............................................             9.3             9.5            10.3             8.8             9.7             9.5
    Middlesex...........................................             8.1             7.4             8.3           * 8.3             7.9           * 8.0
    Monmouth............................................              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM
    Morris..............................................             8.1             8.5             8.7             7.9             8.5             8.4
    Passaic.............................................             9.0             8.9            10.1             9.1             9.3           * 9.3
    Somerset............................................              NM              NM              NM              NM  ..............  ..............
    Union...............................................            11.3            10.6            12.2            10.7            11.4            11.2
NEW YORK:
    Bronx...............................................            12.7            11.4            11.6             9.5            11.9             9.8
    Kings...............................................            10.7             9.9            10.3             9.7            10.3             9.9
    Nassau..............................................             9.0             8.7             8.9             (*)             8.9             (*)
    New York............................................            11.6            11.5            12.2            11.7            11.7            11.8
    Orange..............................................             7.9             8.1             8.6           * 7.8             8.2           * 8.2
    Queens..............................................             9.5             9.4             9.3             8.5             9.4           * 9.1
    Richmond............................................             9.8             9.7            10.1             9.4             9.8            9.6*
    Rockland............................................              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM
    Suffolk.............................................             8.1             8.4             8.8             7.9             8.4             8.4
    Westchester.........................................             9.1             8.8             9.3             (*)             9.1             (*)
CONNECTICUT:
    Fairfield...........................................             9.4             8.8            10.0             9.3             9.4             9.4
    New Haven...........................................             9.9             9.0            10.0             9.2             9.6             9.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INC--All counties listed as INC did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement for the relevant time period.
NM--No monitor located in county.
*--Missing 1 or more quarters.

                                Table 2--Design Value Concentrations for the PA-NJ-DE 1997 Annual PM2.5 Area ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                                            [The standard is 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Annual mean concentrations              Preliminary     2011 3-year     Preliminary
                                                         ------------------------------------------------   annual mean    annual design    2012 3-year
                                                                                concentration       value       annual design
               Nonattainment area counties                                                               --------------------------------      value
                                                               2009            2010            2011                                      ---------------
                                                                                2012          2009-2011       2010-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW JERSEY:
    Camden..............................................             9.5            10.3            10.1             9.0             9.7             9.5
    Gloucester..........................................             9.3            10.0             9.4             9.4             9.3           * 9.3
    Burlington..........................................              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM
DELAWARE:
    New Castle..........................................            11.2            11.7            10.3            10.3            10.7            10.4
PENNSYLVANIA:
    Bucks...............................................            10.8            10.5            11.5            10.7            10.9            10.9
    Chester.............................................            14.1            13.8            13.3             9.8            13.7          * 12.3

    Delaware............................................            12.4            13.5            12.9          * 12.8            12.9          * 13.1
    Montgomery..........................................            10.4             9.5            10.3             9.7            10.1             9.8
    Philadelphia........................................            11.1            11.0            11.4            16.4            11.2            13.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM--No monitor located in county.
*--Missing 1 or more quarters.

    Air monitoring data indicates that the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas continue to meet the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA concludes that NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas
are continuing to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Therefore, EPA proposes that the statutory criterion for attainment of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (40 CFR 50.7 and Appendix N of
part 50) has been met.
2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
    An area may be considered to be attaining the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS if it meets the NAAQS as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.13 and Appendix N of part 50, based on three
complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 98th percentile 24-hour
concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix N, is less than or equal to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ at all relevant
monitoring sites in the subject area over a 3-year period. The relevant
data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58 and recorded in EPA's AQS. The monitors meet data completeness
requirements when ``at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days
for each quarter have valid data.'' The use of less than complete data
is subject to the approval of EPA, which may consider factors such as
monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence, and nearby
concentrations in determining whether to use such data.
    EPA previously finalized determinations that the NY-NJ-CT and PA-
NJ-DE nonattainment areas had attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, as noted in section IIA. EPA has also reviewed
more recent quality-assured data for both NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas. The ambient air monitoring data submitted by New
Jersey shows PM2.5 concentrations attaining the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2009-2011 time period for both
nonattainment areas.
    Table 3, below, shows the design value by county for the 98th
percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations for the 2009-2011
time period for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-NJ-
CT PM2.5 nonattainment area monitors. Table 4 shows the
design value by county for the 2009-2011 time period for the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment area monitors. Preliminary design values \11\ for the
2010-2012 time period is also shown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ All data for 2012 has been quality-assured.

                               Table 3--Design Value Concentrations for the NY-NJ-CT 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Area ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                                             [The standard is 35 [mu]g/m\3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              98th percentile 24-hour concentrations        Preliminary   2011 3-year 24-   Preliminary
                                                         ------------------------------------------------      98th         hour design   2012 3-year 24-
                                                                                percentile 24-       value        hour design
               Nonattainment area counties                                                                     hour      ----------------      value
                                                               2009            2010            2011        concentration                 ---------------
                                                                                ----------------    2009-2011
                                                                                2012                          2010-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW JERSEY:
    Bergen..............................................            27.1            25.1            23.5            19.2              25              23
    Essex...............................................             INC             INC            23.9            21.5             INC              23
    Hudson..............................................            29.2            25.9            28.2            24.6              28              26
    Mercer..............................................            23.0            26.9            27.7            20.5              26              25
    Middlesex...........................................            21.0            19.1            20.5          * 17.5              20            * 19
    Monmouth............................................              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM
    Morris..............................................            20.9            22.7            24.4            18.2              23              21
    Passaic.............................................            26.1            24.4            25.4            21.4              25            * 24
    Somerset............................................              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM
    Union...............................................            27.7            28.1            32.9            25.8              30              29
NEW YORK:
    Bronx...............................................            30.0            27.0            27.0            25.1              28              24
    Kings...............................................            26.9            24.8            24.3            22.1              25              24
    Nassau..............................................            25.8            20.2            23.1             (*)              23             (*)
    New York............................................            29.0            27.0            26.8            24.9              28              26
    Orange..............................................            20.6            26.5            20.8          * 20.2              23            * 23
    Queens..............................................            26.7            25.5            24.7            20.5              26            * 24
    Richmond............................................            24.6            25.5            23.2            22.1              24            * 24
    Rockland............................................              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM

    Suffolk.............................................            21.6            26.1            21.7            18.7              23              22
    Westchester.........................................            27.0            26.7            22.7             (*)              25             (*)
CONNECTICUT:
    Fairfield...........................................            26.4            24.2            25.2            22.5              26              24
    New Haven...........................................            30.2            25.5            27.5            22.0              28              25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM--No monitor located in county.
INC--All counties listed as INC did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement for the relevant time period.
*--Missing 1 or more quarters.

                               Table 4--Design Value Concentrations for the PA-NJ-DE 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Area ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                                             [The standard is 35 [mu]g/m\3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              98th percentile 24-hour concentrations        Preliminary   2011 3-year 24-   Preliminary
                                                         ------------------------------------------------      98th         hour design   2012 3-year 24-
                                                                                percentile 24-       value        hour design
               Nonattainment area counties                                                                     hour      ----------------      value
                                                               2009            2010            2011        concentration                 ---------------
                                                                                ----------------    2009-2011
                                                                                2012                          2010-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW JERSEY:
    Camden..............................................            25.0            23.4            24.3            19.8              24              23
    Gloucester..........................................            21.9            21.6            22.2            21.8              22            * 22
    Burlington..........................................              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM
DELAWARE:
    New Castle..........................................            28.4            27.9            24.7            24.2              27              26
PENNSYLVANIA:
    Bucks...............................................            25.8            28.3            29.7            28.2              28              29
    Chester.............................................            31.1            35.1            33.8            24.1              33              31
    Delaware............................................            27.9            32.8            28.6          * 31.1              30            * 31
    Montgomery..........................................            27.2            25.9            27.6            21.8              27              25
    Philadelphia........................................            28.6            28.9            30.6            31.4              29              30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM--No monitor located in county.
*--Missing 1 or more quarters.

    Air monitoring data indicates that the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas continue to meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA concludes that the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment
areas are continuing to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Therefore, EPA proposes that the statutory criterion for attainment of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (40 CFR 50.13 and Appendix N of
part 50) has been met.

B. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA

    EPA has determined that the NNJ and the SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas have met all SIP requirements applicable for
purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General
SIP Requirements) and that, upon final approval of the 2007 attainment
year emissions inventory, as discussed below in this proposed
rulemaking, it will have met all applicable SIP requirements under part
D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA is proposing to find that all
applicable requirements of the New Jersey SIP for purposes of
redesignation have been approved in accordance with CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
1. Section 110 SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in CAA section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to the following:
     Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
     Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
     Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));
     Provisions for the implementation of part D requirements
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
     Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
     Provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision,
EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the
interstate transport of air pollutants in accordance with the
NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to
the NOX

SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222),
and CAIR, May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA
believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment
area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to
evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP
submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state
regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state.
Thus, EPA does not believe that these requirements are applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    In addition, EPA believes that the other CAA section 110(a)(2)
elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these
requirements after it is redesignated. EPA concludes that the CAA
section 110(a)(2) and part D requirements which are linked with a
particular area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request, and that CAA
section 110(a)(2) elements not linked in the area's nonattainment
status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. This approach
is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity
(i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida
final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR
at 37890, June 19, 2000) and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001).
    On April 10, 2013 (78 FR at 21296) EPA proposed action on New
Jersey's section 110 ``infrastructure SIPs'' required under CAA section
110(a)(2) that were submitted by the state. New Jersey submitted an
infrastructure SIP on February 25, 2008 that addressed the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. On January 20, 2010 the state submitted an
infrastructure SIP that addressed the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA will be acting on those SIPs under separate actions.
    EPA has reviewed the New Jersey SIP and has concluded that it meets
the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to the
extent they are applicable for purposes for redesignating the NNJ and
SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA has not yet completed
rulemaking on New Jersey's submittals for the PM2.5
infrastructure SIP elements of section 110(a)(2), these requirements
are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked to the
PM2.5 nonattainment status of the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Therefore, EPA believes that
these SIP elements are not applicable requirements for purposes of
review of New Jersey's PM2.5 redesignation request.
2. Title I, part D nonattainment requirements
    Subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the CAA sets forth the basic
nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. All
areas that were designated nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS were designated under this subpart of the CAA,
and the requirements applicable to them are contained in sections 172
and 176. EPA's analysis of the particulate-matter-specific provisions
of Subpart 4 of part D of Title I as a result of the January 4, 2013
D.C. Circuit decision is discussed earlier in this notice.

Section 172 Requirements

    Under CAA section172, states with nonattainment areas must submit
plans providing for timely attainment and meet a variety of other
requirements. As mentioned, EPA has finalized determinations that the
NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas had attained the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Notwithstanding that New Jersey's obligation to submit an
attainment demonstration, RACT/RACM, RFP, contingency measures, and
other planning SIPs related to the attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS has been suspended due to EPA's determination that the
nonattainment areas attained the NAAQS, New Jersey had previously
submitted a SIP revision (PM2.5 attainment plan) for
attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP was submitted
to EPA on April 1, 2009. EPA proposed to approve the PM2.5
attainment plan on December 14, 2012 (77 FR 74421). As a result of the
determination of attainment, the only remaining requirement to be
considered is the emission inventory required under CAA section
172(c)(3).
    The General Preamble for Implementation of Title I also discusses
the evaluation of these requirements in the context of EPA's
consideration of a redesignation request. The General Preamble sets
forth EPA's view of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating
redesignation requests when an area is attaining the standard. See
General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16,
1992).
    Because attainment has been reached for the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment areas, no additional measures are needed to provide for
attainment. CAA section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment
demonstration and RACT/RACM are no longer considered to be applicable
requirements for as long as the area continues to attain the standard
until redesignation. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). The RFP requirement under
CAA section 172(c)(2) is similarly not relevant for purposes of
redesignation.
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. As
part of the maintenance plan submitted by New Jersey on December 26,
2012, and further supplemented on May 3, 2013, the State has submitted
an attainment year inventory that meets this requirement. For purposes
of the PM2.5 NAAQS, the emissions inventory should address
not only direct emissions of PM2.5, but also emissions of
all precursors with the potential to participate in PM2.5
formation, i.e., SO2, NOX, VOC and
NH3. The 2007 attainment year emissions inventory submitted
by New Jersey in the December 26, 2012 submission addressed
PM2.5 (including condensables), SO2, and
NOX emissions. The May 3, 2013 submission addressed VOC and
NH3.
    The emissions cover the general source categories of point sources,
area sources, onroad sources and nonroad sources. The proposed approval
of the 2007 attainment year emissions inventory in this rulemaking
action will, when finalized, meet the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(3).
    The 2007 emissions inventory was prepared by NJDEP and is presented
in Tables 7A and 7B located in section VI.E.2(a), Attainment Emissions
Inventory, of this action. The tables show the 2007 base year
PM2.5, NOx, SO2, VOC and
NH3 annual emission inventories for the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA's detailed evaluation of the
base year inventories for all pollutants are addressed in section
VI.E.2.(a), Attainment Emissions

Inventory, of this action. A copy of the Technical Support Document
\13\ submitted by New Jersey is included in the New Jersey SIP
submission.
    Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires the identification and
quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified
stationary sources in an area, and CAA section 172(c)(5) requires
source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified
major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has
determined that, since the PSD requirements will apply after
redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the
requirement that a nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) program be
approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale
for this view is described in the memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994
entitled, ``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.''
    New Jersey has not relied on a part D NSR program to maintain air
quality for the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover, because the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas are being redesignated to
attainment by this action, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) requirements will be applicable to new or modified sources of
PM2.5 in the area.
    New Jersey currently implements NSR in the thirteen nonattainment
counties through the ``transitional'' NSR provisions contained in
Appendix S of 40 CFR Part 51 and the USEPA policy memorandum dated July
21, 2011, concerning interpollutant offsets. The Federal provisions and
policy memorandum will be superseded once New Jersey revises its
Emission Offset Rule N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.
    New Jersey does not have its own promulgated regulations as part of
the SIP for part C Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules.
New Jersey is appropriately implementing the PSD program through the
delegated federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. The program will
become effective in the NNJ and SNJ areas upon redesignation to
attainment.
    Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures
necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because attainment
has been reached in the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas,
no additional control measures are needed to provide for attainment.
    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes the New
Jersey SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
    CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas
``shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be
undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to
attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part.
Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency
measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the
State or [EPA].'' This contingency measure requirement is inextricably
tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration
requirements. Because attainment has been reached for the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, contingency measures are
not applicable for redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine transportation conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and projects that are developed, funded
or approved under Title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the
Federal Transit Act. The requirement to determine general conformity
applies to all other federally supported or funded projects. State
transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal
transportation conformity regulations relating to consultation,
enforcement and enforceability that EPA promulgated pursuant to its
authority under the CAA \12\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Guidance on transportation conformity SIPs can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b09001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA interprets the conformity \13\ SIP requirements as not applying
for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d)
because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation
and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this
interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (redesignation
of Tampa, Florida).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit
revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain Federal criteria and
procedures for determining transportation conformity. Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from MVEBs that are established in
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA requires that for an area to be
redesignated the Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k).
    Upon final approval of New Jersey's 2007 attainment year emissions
inventory, EPA will have fully approved the SIPs for the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 110(k) for all requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation.
    EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 attainment year emissions
inventory (submitted as part of its maintenance plan) for the NNJ and
SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas as meeting the requirement of
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, New Jersey will have satisfied all
applicable requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA.

D. The Air Quality Improvement Must Be Permanent and Enforceable

    The improvement in air quality must be due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of
the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and
other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA proposes to determine that the air quality
improvement in New Jersey in the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures,
and other state adopted measures.
    New Jersey's redesignation submission cited a number of regulatory
programs that provided for emission reductions of PM2.5, and
PM2.5 precursors NOX, and SO2. New
Jersey also included control measures for VOCs, which were not
considered quantifiable precursors when the redesignation request was
submitted, as they expected some PM2.5 benefit from the
implementation of VOC control measures.
    The regulatory control measures for PM2.5, and
PM2.5 precursors VOCs, NOX, and SO2,
included in New Jersey's redesignation submission have been adopted
into the SIP, which provided for emission reductions from 2002 to 2009,
the year modeled for the attainment demonstration for the 1997

PM2.5 NAAQS. New Jersey also included additional measures
that were adopted by the state, but not yet implemented, that would
provide benefit after 2009. From 2002 to 2009, statewide emissions
decreased significantly: PM2.5 emissions decreased by 34
percent, NOX emissions have decreased by 39 percent, and
SO2 emissions have decreased by 70 percent.
    Tables 5A and 5B below, show the State and Federal control
measures, which provide emission reductions from 2002 to 2009. The
tables also summarize the maintenance plan measures with quantifiable
emission reductions that New Jersey is relying on to demonstrate
maintenance; discussed in more detail in section VI.E below. Additional
2002 to 2009 control measures that support the SIP but were not
quantified, or are VOC only measures, are also shown.

                    Table 5A--New Jersey's 2002-2009 Control Measures That Reduce Emissions of PM2.5 and Its Precursors in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Targeted pollutants
                 Measure                  --------------------------------------------------------  Maintenance            Affected State rules
                                                NOX          PM2.5          SO2           VOC      plan measure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (IM)              X   ............  ............            X             X   NJAC 7:27-15.
 Program.
NOX Budget Program (SIP Call)............            X   ............            X   ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-30.
Electric Generating Unit (EGU)--BL                   X             X             X   ............  ............  NA.
 England Administrative Consent Order
 (ACO).
EGUP-SEG--Consent Decree.................            X             X             X   ............            X   NA.
Refinery Consent Decree (Sunoco, Valero,             X             X             X             X             X   NA.
 ConocoPhillips).
Industrial, Commercial and Institutional             X   ............  ............  ............            X   NJAC 7:27-27.19.
 Boilers (ICI) Boilers, Turbines and
 Engines 2005.
Case by Case NOX and VOC (Facility                   X   ............  ............            X   ............  NJAC 7:27-16, 19.
 Specific Emission Limits or FSELs/
 Administrative Emission Limits or AELs).
Sewage and Sludge Incinerators...........            X   ............  ............  ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-19.28.
New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (LEV)                X             X             X             X             X   NJAC 7:27-29.
 Program.
Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators)            X   ............  ............  ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-19.13.
Asphalt Production Plants................            X   ............  ............  ............            X   NJAC 7:27-19.9.
ICI Boilers 2009.........................            X   ............  ............  ............            X   NJAC 7:27-19.7.
EGU-High Electric Demand Day (HEDD)......            X   ............            X   ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-19.29.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Additional New Jersey Measures That Support the SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage I and II (Gasoline Transfer          ............  ............  ............            X   ............  NJAC 7:27-16.
 Operations)..
Architectural Coatings 2005..............  ............  ............  ............            X   ............  NJAC 7:27-23.
Consumer Products 2005...................  ............  ............  ............            X   ............  NJAC 7:27-24.
Mobile Equipment Refinishing (Auto body).  ............  ............  ............            X   ............  NJAC 7:27-16.
Solvent Cleaning.........................  ............  ............  ............            X   ............  NJAC 7:27-16.
Portable Fuel Containers 2005............  ............  ............  ............            X   ............  NJAC 7:27-24.
Mercury Rule.............................            X             X             X   ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-27.
Diesel Vehicle Retrofit Program..........  ............            X   ............  ............  ............  NJAC 7:27-32, 14.
Consumer Products 2009...................  ............  ............  ............            X   ............  NJAC 7:27-24.
Adhesives & Sealants.....................  ............  ............  ............            X   ............  NJAC 7:27-26.
Asphalt Paving (cutback and emulsified)..  ............  ............  ............            X   ............  NJAC 7:27-16.19.
Control Technology Guideline (CTG) Group   ............  ............  ............            X   ............  NJAC 7:27-16.7.
 1: Printing.
Portable Fuel Containers 2009............  ............  ............  ............            X   ............  NJAC 7:27-24.
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)...            X             X             X             X   ............  NJAC 7:27-8.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration              X             X             X             X   ............  NA.
 (PSD).
Energy Master Plan.......................            X             X             X             X   ............  NA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 5B--Federal 2002-2009 Control Measures That Reduce Emissions of PM2.5 and Its Precursors in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Targeted pollutants
                  Measure                  --------------------------------------------------------  Maintenance
                                                 NOX          PM2.5          SO2           VOC      plan measure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Woodstove NSPS................            X             X   ............            X             X
Motor Vehicle Control Program (Tier 1 and             X             X             X             X             X
 Tier 2)..................................
Acid Rain Program.........................            X   ............            X   ............  ............
Nonroad Diesel Engine Standards...........            X             X   ............            X             X
Phase 2 Standards for New Nonroad Spark-              X   ............  ............            X             X
 Ignition Nonhandheld Engines at or below
 19 kW (lawn and garden)..................
Phase 2 Standards for Small Spark-Ignition            X   ............  ............            X             X
 Handheld Engines at or below 19 kW (lawn
 and garden)..............................
Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Defeat               X   ............  ............  ............  ............
 Device Settlement........................
Gasoline Boats and Personal Watercraft,               X             X   ............            X             X
 Outboard Engines.........................
National Low Emission Vehicle Program                 X             X   ............            X             X
 (NLEV)...................................

Large Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines               X   ............  ............  ............            X
 over 19 kW (>50 hp) Tier 1 and Tier 2....
Heavy-Duty Highway Rule--Vehicle Standards            X             X   ............            X             X
 and Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control...........
Diesel Marine Engines over 37 kW Category             X   ............  ............            X             X
 1 Tier 2, Category 2 Tier 2, Category 3
 Tier 1...................................
Recreational Vehicles (includes                       X   ............  ............            X             X
 snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, and
 all-terrain vehicles)....................
Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-            X             X   ............            X             X
 Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per
 Cylinder Tier 2 and Tier 3...............
USEPA Maximum Achievable Control            ............  ............  ............            X             X
 Technology (MACT) Standards including
 Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 6A and 6B show additional post 2009 maintenance plan
measures with creditable emission reductions, including measures that
have been adopted but not yet implemented, that New Jersey is relying
on to demonstrate maintenance; discussed in more detail in section VI.E
below. New Jersey's submittal also included additional measures to
provide additional assurance that the improvement in New Jersey's air
quality will continue to improve.

                    Table 6A--New Jersey's Post 2009 Control Measures That Reduce Emissions of PM2.5 and Its Precursors in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Targeted pollutants
                 Measure                  --------------------------------------------------------  Maintenance            Affected State rules
                                                NOX          PM2.5          SO2           VOC      plan measure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle IM Program Revisions.............            X   ............  ............            X             X   NJAC 7:27-15.
Glass Manufacturing......................            X   ............  ............  ............            X   NJAC 7:27-19.10.
EGU--Coal, Oil, and Gas Fired Boilers....            X             X             X   ............            X   NJAC 7:27-4.2, 10.2, 19.4.
Low Sulfur Distillate and Residual Fuel              X   ............            X   ............            X   NJAC 7:27-9, 7:27-27.9.
 Strategies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 6B--Federal Post 2009 Control Measures That Reduce Emissions of PM2.5 and Its Precursors in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Targeted pollutants
                  Measure                  --------------------------------------------------------  Maintenance
                                                 NOX          PM2.5          SO2           VOC      plan measure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines             X             X   ............  ............            X
 MACT.....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Jersey also presented data to demonstrate that the decline in
PM2.5 concentrations was due primarily to permanent and
enforceable control measures rather than the country's economic
recession that began in 2007 and resulting downturn in energy use.
    Although electricity generation in New Jersey decreased by one
percent from 2007 to 2009, electricity generation in New Jersey has
experienced an overall increase of 5 percent from 2002 to 2011. In
contrast, emission reductions have outpaced generation changes with
decreases of 93, 84 and 72 percent for SO2, NOX
and PM2.5, respectively, from 2000-2011, with significant
emission reductions occurring prior to 2007. From 2007 to 2009,
emission reductions for SO2, NOX and
PM2.5 show decreases of 65, 51, and 46 percent,
respectively.
    New Jersey also examined the onroad mobile sector to determine if
statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data declined and whether it was
significant enough to affect air quality compared to emission
reductions from ``fleet turnover''. ``Fleet turnover'' refers to the
replacement of older, more polluting vehicles with newer vehicles that
emit pollutants at lower levels as a result of the Federal ``Tier 2''
new vehicle emission standards (began with the 2004 model year), and
further augmented by the California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV)II new
vehicle emission standards (began with the 2009 model year in New
Jersey).
    Based on yearly statewide data, VMT declined approximately 3.7
percent in 2008 and 0.5 percent in 2009 after steady annual VMT
increases of about two percent between 1996 and 2006. Between 2007 and
2009, emissions of PM2.5 decreased by 23 percent, and
NOX by 24 percent. An evaluation of onroad emissions data
from 2002 to 2009 shows New Jersey emissions of PM2.5
decreasing by approximately 39 percent and emissions of NOX
decreasing by approximately 50 percent, even though VMT increased by
4.5 to 6 percent. This suggests that fleet turnover, rather than
changes in VMT, had a much greater impact on onroad emissions.
    New Jersey has demonstrated that actual enforceable emission
reductions are responsible for the air quality

improvement. EPA proposes to find that the combination of existing EPA-
approved SIP and Federal measures contribute to the permanence and
enforceability of reduction in ambient PM2.5 levels that
have allowed New Jersey to attain the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved
maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the
NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas to attainment for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, New Jersey submitted a SIP revision to provide
for maintenance for at least 10 years after the effective date of
redesignation to attainment. EPA believes this maintenance plan meets
the requirements for approval under section 175A of the CAA.
1. What is required in a maintenance plan?
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction
of any future PM2.5 violations. The Calcagni Memorandum,
dated September 4, 1992, provides further guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address
five requirements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a
maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for 10 years; (3) a
commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network; (4)
verification of continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan to
prevent or correct future violations. As is discussed more fully below,
EPA proposes to find that the New Jersey maintenance plan includes all
the necessary components and is thus proposing to approve it as a
revision to the New Jersey SIP.
2. Analysis of the Maintenance Plan
    The maintenance demonstration must demonstrate effective safeguards
of the NAAQS for at least 10 years following the redesignation showing
that future PM2.5 and precursor emissions will not exceed
the level of the attainment year.
    States are required to submit the following inventory elements to
satisfy the redesignation/maintenance plan inventory requirements:
    Maintenance Plan Attainment Inventory. Maintenance plan provisions
include a comprehensive, accurate, and current emissions inventory from
all point, area, nonroad and onroad mobile sources for the
PM2.5 nonattainment area. States are required to develop an
attainment inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area
that is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. This inventory should include
the emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring
data showing attainment.
    Maintenance Plan Interim Year Inventory. At a minimum, emissions
should be projected to a midpoint year between the attainment year and
the endpoint/10-year inventory. This inventory provides a summary of
controlled emissions for point, area, nonroad and onroad mobile sources
for the PM2.5 nonattainment area for the interim year
inventory.
    Maintenance Plan Projected Final Year Inventory. Emissions should
be projected from the attainment year to at least 10 years into the
future. This inventory provides a summary of controlled emissions for
point, area, nonroad and onroad mobile sources at the endpoint/10-year
period.
    For the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 2007
emissions were projected to 2017 and 2025. New Jersey must demonstrate,
with the control programs identified in this SIP, that total 2017 or
2025 projected emissions do not exceed the 2007 emission levels.
    Below are EPA's review and evaluation of the maintenance
demonstration for the two areas. Additional detail is provided in the
TSD.
(a) Attainment Emissions Inventory
    Selection of 2007 Base Year as the Maintenance Plan Attainment
Year. Inventory An attainment inventory is comprised of the emissions
during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing
attainment. New Jersey selected 2007 as the attainment inventory year
for the SNJ and NNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas for the 1997
annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards.
    For the 1997 PM2.5 annual standard, the NNJ
nonattainment area had monitored attainment based on air monitoring
data for 2007-2009; and the SNJ nonattainment area had monitored
attainment based on air monitoring data for 2007-2009, and 2008-2010.
Additionally, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, the NNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment area had monitored attainment for 2007-
2009, and 2008-1010; and the SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment area
had monitored attainment for 2008-2010, and 2009-2011.
    Historically for the attainment inventory, the state would select
an attainment year inventory characterizing emissions in the
maintenance area from one of the three years in the three-year period
in which the state monitored attainment. For the SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment area, New Jersey should have selected 2008 or 2009 as the
attainment year inventory for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard. However, the state believes that the 2007 inventory is an
appropriate and representative inventory to use as a surrogate
attainment inventory for the 2008 inventory for the SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard for several reasons discussed:
     The 2007 inventory is the most comprehensive inventory
developed by states in the region for SIP purposes.
     For all of the available data, the monitors in the SNJ
nonattainment area showed compliance with the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ during the 2007-2009
monitoring period. However, there was some incomplete data for 2007 in
the SNJ area that was not able to be addressed through data
substitution and statistical analysis. Incomplete data also existed for
the 2008-2010 monitoring period, but was able to be addressed through
data substitution and statistical analysis.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See TSD in EPA Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0371 at
wwww.regulations.gov for discussion of EPA's procedure for
addressing missing data not meeting completeness requirements for
monitors in the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area for the 2006 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The monitors in the NNJ PM2.5 nonattainment
area showed compliance with the 35 [mu]g/m\3\ daily standard during the
2007-2009 monitoring period.
     The 2007 and 2008 emission inventories are comparable, as
demonstrated by a comparison of New Jersey's 2007 inventory with
USEPA's 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI).

     Most important, comparison of the 2008 to the 2017 and
2025 inventories, shows that emissions will continue to decrease and
will be well below the 2007 and 2008 levels for PM2.5 and
its precursors, NOX, and SO2, in the SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment area.
    For these reasons, the state selected the 2007 inventory as a
surrogate for the 2008 inventory. EPA proposes to concur that the 2007
base year emissions inventory is appropriate as the attainment year
inventory for the PM2.5 redesignation maintenance plan.
    Criteria for Approval of the Maintenance Plan Attainment Year
Inventory. There are general and specific components of an acceptable
emission inventory. In general, the State must submit a revision to its
SIP and the emission inventory must meet the minimum requirements for
reporting by source category.
    For a base year emission inventory to be acceptable it must pass
all of the following acceptance criteria:
    1. Evidence that the inventory was quality assured by the state and
its implementation documented.
    2. The point source inventory must be complete.
    3. Point source emissions must have been prepared or calculated
according to the current EPA guidance.
    4. The area source inventory must be complete.
    5. The area source emissions must have been prepared or calculated
according to the current EPA guidance.
    6. Non-road mobile emissions were prepared according to current EPA
guidance for all of the source categories.
    7. The method (e.g., Highway Performance Monitoring System or a
network transportation planning model) used to develop VMT estimates
must follow EPA guidance. The VMT development methods must be
adequately described and documented in the inventory report.
    8. The Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model must be
correctly used to produce emission factors for each of the vehicle
classes.

EPA's Evaluation of the Maintenance Plan Attainment Year Inventory

Quality Assurance Plan Implementation
    The Quality Assurance (QA) plan was implemented for all portions of
the inventory. QA checks were performed relative to data collection and
analysis, and double counting of emissions from point, area and mobile
sources. QA/QC checks were conducted to ensure accuracy of units, unit
conversions, transposition of figures, and calculations.
Point and Area Source Inventories
    New Jersey's inventory includes major point sources based on
specific thresholds for each pollutant in tons per year (tpy). The
inventory report describes how point and area source activity levels
and their associated parameters were developed, and how the data were
used to calculate emission estimates. The inventory lists the source
categories that are included in (and excluded from) the area source
inventory. The report provides referenced documents for activity level
and emission factors used. Information on how control efficiencies were
derived (with the associated sample calculations) is also provided.
Point and area source summary information on detailed county and/or
nonattainment area levels, are included in the inventory. Where
applicable, annual emissions are provided for PM2.5,
NOx, SO2, VOC and NH3 for the
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
    The primary sources of anthropogenic NH3 emissions are
two agricultural operations, livestock and fertilizer. NH3
emissions from livestock and fertilizer were prepared by the USEPA
using the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) Ammonia Model, version 6.
The model runs are based on 2007 activity levels. NH3
emissions for industrial refrigeration, composting, and publicly owned
treatment works were prepared by the USEPA.
Nonroad Mobile Source Inventory
    For New Jersey, the predominant non-road mobile source categories
(i.e., agricultural equipment, construction equipment, industrial
equipment, airport service equipment, light commercial equipment, lawn
and garden equipment,etc.) were developed by the Nonroad Emissions
Equipment Model 2008 released by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air
Quality (OTAQ). Nonroad mobile source emissions are presented on a
source category, county and/or nonattainment area basis. Where
applicable, annual emissions are provided for PM2.5,
NOX, SO2, VOC and NH3 for the
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Aircraft, Locomotive and Commercial Marine Vessel Inventories
    Where applicable, aircraft, locomotive, and commercial marine
vessel emissions on a county and/or nonattainment area basis are
provided for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and
NH3. Activity level and emissions data for each source
category is provided. Aircraft, locomotive and commercial marine vessel
source emissions are presented on a source category, county and/or
nonattainment area basis. Where applicable, annual emissions are
provided for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and
NH3 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Onroad Mobile Source Inventory
    New Jersey's mobile source inventory was developed by using the
travel demand model (TDM) used by the two Metropolitan Planning
Organizations in the States as the basis for estimating actual county
level and functional class VMT estimates. Estimates were developed from
the aforementioned sources for each roadway functional class, by
county, in each of the PM2.5 nonattainment areas. MOVES2010a
Model was used to generate emission factors for on-road vehicle
emission estimates. It provides the sources for the key inputs into the
mobile source emissions model. Key assumptions are also included. Where
applicable, PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and
NH3 mobile emissions are presented on county and/or
nonattainment area basis. Where applicable, annual emissions are
provided for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and
NH3 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
    Tables 7A and 7B below show the 2007 base year PM2.5,
NOX, SO2, VOC and NH3 annual emission
inventories for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

                                   Table 7A--2007 NNJ Area Base Year Inventory
                                                 [In tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pollutant                  Point           Area       Nonroad mobile   Onroad mobile       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM 2.5..........................           4,937           5,498           2,497           3,677          16,610
NOX.............................          15,828          16,122          39.457          93,385         164,793
SOX.............................          20,360           4,983           5,761             586          31,690
VOC.............................           7,584          60,560          26,833          47,490         142,667

NH3.............................             804           2,909              37           2,101           5,840
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   Table 7B--2007 SNJ Area Base Year Inventory
                                                 [In tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pollutant                  Point           Area       Nonroad mobile   Onroad mobile       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM 2.5..........................             800           2,837             560           1,055           5,159
NOX.............................           4,453           3,483           6,790          26,992          41,718
SOX.............................           2,034           1,128           1,642             161           4,965
VOC.............................           2,041          17,184           6,490          10,880          36,594
NH3.............................              53           1,032              12             462           1,559
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 base year inventory for
PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and
NH3 for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment
areas. The 2007 Maintenance Plan Attainment Year/Base Year emissions
inventory is comprehensive, accurate, and current for all sources of
relevant pollutants in the nonattainment area. In all cases the 2007
attainment/base year inventory was done in accordance with EPA
guidance. The technical support document provides additional
information regarding the review conducted by EPA for the 2007
PM2.5 base year inventory.
(b) 2017 Interim and 2025 End Year Projection Inventories
    Criteria for Approval of the 2017 Interim and 2025 Projection End
Year Inventories. There are general and specific components for
acceptable 2017 Maintenance Plan Interim and 2025 End Year Projection
Inventories. In general, the State must submit a revision to its SIP
and the aforementioned components must meet certain minimum
requirements for reporting by source category.
    For the projection inventories to be acceptable they must pass the
following acceptance criteria: \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Emission Inventory Improvement Program guidance document
titled Volume X, Emission Projections, dated December 1999
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Were the 2017 and 2025 projection inventories developed in
accordance with the procedures outlined in EPA's latest guidance?
    2. Were the Plans developed in accordance with EPA's latest
guidance for Growth Factors, Projections, and Control Strategies for
Reasonable Progress Goal Plans?
    EPA's Evaluation of the Maintenance Plan 2017 Interim and 2025 End
Year Projection Inventories. A projection of 2007 PM2.5,
NOX, and SO2 anthropogenic emissions to 2017 and
2025 is required to determine the emission reductions needed for
inventory maintenance plan. The 2017 and 2025 projection year emission
inventories are calculated by multiplying the 2007 base year inventory
by factors which estimate growth from 2007 to 2017 and 2025. A specific
growth factor for each source type in the inventory is required since
sources typically grow at different rates.
Major Point Sources
Electric Generating Units (EGU) and Non-Electric Generating Units (Non-
EGUs)
    For the major point source category, the projected emissions
inventories were first calculated by estimating growth in each source
category. As appropriate, the 2007 emissions inventory was used as the
base for applying factors to account for inventory growth. The point
source inventory was grown from the 2007 inventory to 2017 and 2025 for
each facility using growth factors utilized in New Jersey's Emissions
Statement Program, US Department of Energy's (USDOE) Annual Energy
Outlook projections, and NJ Department of Labor statistics.
Area Sources
    For the area source category, New Jersey projected emissions from
2007 to 2017 and 2025 using growth factors generated from USDOE 2011
Annual Energy Outlook, and state-supplied population and employment
data, where appropriate.
Non-Road Mobile Sources
Nonroad Vehicle Equipment Emissions
    Non-road vehicle equipment emissions were projected from 2007 to
2017 and 2025 using the EPA's NONROAD 2008a model (July 2009 version).
This model was used to calculate past and future emission inventories
for all nonroad equipment categories except commercial marine vessels,
locomotives and aircrafts. Emissions were determined on a monthly basis
and combined to provide annual emission estimates.
Aircrafts, Locomotives and Commercial Marine Vessels (CMV)
    Aircraft emissions were projected from 2007 to 2017 and 2025 based
on landing and takeoff growth factors from the Federal Aviation
Administration Terminal Area Forecast System for 2009-2030.
    Locomotives emissions were projected from 2007 to 2017 and 2025
based on combined growth and control factors from EPA's regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) in May 2008 for control of locomotive engines and
USDOE's 2006 Annual Energy Outlook report.
    CMV emissions were projected to 2017 and 2025 using EPA's May 2008
RIA report, for category 1 and 2 vessels and EPA's 2009 RIA report for
category 3 vessels based on combined growth and control factors.
Onroad Mobile Sources
    For the onroad mobile source category, the primary indicator and
tool for developing on-road mobile growth and expected emissions are
VMT and US EPA's mobile emissions model MOVES2010a. Projection years
2017 and 2025 pollutant emission factors were generated by MOVES2010a
(with the associated controlled measures applied, where appropriate)
and applied to the monthly VMT projections provided by the State.
Monthly emissions were then combined to develop annual emission
estimates.
    Tables 8A-8C and 9A-9C, show the 2017 and 2025 projection emission
inventories controlled after 2007 using the aforementioned growth
indicators/

methodologies for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas,
respectively.

    Table 8A--Comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the NNJ Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      PM2.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Net change
                     Sector                            2007            2017            2025          2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------