[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 241 (Friday, December 14, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74421-74434]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30223]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2010-0482 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Raymond
Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official business
hours is Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2010-0482. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless

the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Do not submit through at www.regulations.gov, or email,
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The at
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through at www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in at www.regulations.gov
or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007-1866. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view
the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding legal
holidays.

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

I. What action is EPA proposing?

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

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

A. Designation History

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

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

B. Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule

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

C. Determinations of Attainment

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

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

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

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

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

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

 A. Attainment Demonstration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Table 3--Modeled Control Measures Included in the 2009 BOTW Model Run
                             for New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4--Control Measures Adopted by New Jersey Not Captured in the 2009
                             BOTW Model Run
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Contingency Measures

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

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

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

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

V. What is EPA's proposed action?

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 145 (Monday, July 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 35557]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15992]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81201; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 2, Relating to the Listing and Trading of
Shares of the Bitcoin Investment Trust Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8.201

July 25, 2017.
    On January 25, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the Bitcoin Investment Trust under NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8.201. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on February 9, 2017.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79955 (Feb. 3,
2017), 82 FR 10086 (Feb. 9, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 22, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.\5\ On April 6, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change. On April 27, 2017, the Commission published
notice of Amendment No. 1 and instituted proceedings to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1.\6\ On May 11, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 2 to the proposed rule change, and on May 25, 2017, the Commission
published notice of Amendment No. 2.\7\ The Commission has received
fourteen comment letters on the proposed rule change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80297 (Mar. 22,
2017), 82 FR 15408 (Mar. 28, 2017).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80502 (Apr. 21,
2017), 82 FR 19398 (Apr. 27, 2017). Specifically, the Commission
instituted proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the
proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the public
interest.'' See id. at 19411-12.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80729 (May 19,
2017), 82 FR 24185 (May 25, 2017).
    \8\ All comments on the proposed rule change are available on
the Commission's Web site at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-06/nysearca201706.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \9\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the reasons for such determination. The proposed rule
change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on
February 9, 2017. August 8, 2017 is 180 days from that date, and
October 7, 2017 is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed
rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\10\ designates October 7, 2017 as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
(File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15992 Filed 7-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P