Proposed Rule2023-21138
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Exemptions To Improve Resiliency, Air Toxics Thresholds, PM2.5 and Ammonia Emission Statement Reporting, and PM2.5 in Air Permitting
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 28, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve adoptions, repeals, and amendments to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning exemptions to improve resiliency during emergency situations, updates to hazardous air pollutant (HAP) reporting thresholds, updates to the certification and submission of emission statements, and the addition of Federal New Source Review (NSR) requirements for fine particles (PM<INF>2.5</INF>). The intended effect of New Jersey's revisions are to enable government and business entities to be more resilient during and following disruptions from natural and human-caused disasters; update HAP unit risk factors and reference concentrations to reflect current research, scientific, and technological advancements; update provisions to require the reporting of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ammonia (NH3) emissions at the source level and update the electronic reporting of emission statements to adapt with advancements and Federal requirements; and conform the State's rules on air permits to the EPA's NSR requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> to ensure a source does not adversely impact the EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Other revisions New Jersey made, which the EPA is proposing to approve with this notice of proposed rulemaking, will conform administrative penalties to the proposed rules and correct errors and inconsistencies throughout the State's SIP.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66733-66742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21138]
[[Page 66733]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2023-0252; FRL-11034-01-R2]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Exemptions To Improve Resiliency, Air Toxics Thresholds, PM2.5 and
Ammonia Emission Statement Reporting, and PM2.5 in Air Permitting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve adoptions, repeals, and amendments to the New Jersey State
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning exemptions to improve resiliency
during emergency situations, updates to hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
reporting thresholds, updates to the certification and submission of
emission statements, and the addition of Federal New Source Review
(NSR) requirements for fine particles (PM<INF>2.5</INF>). The intended
effect of New Jersey's revisions are to enable government and business
entities to be more resilient during and following disruptions from
natural and human-caused disasters; update HAP unit risk factors and
reference concentrations to reflect current research, scientific, and
technological advancements; update provisions to require the reporting
of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ammonia (NH3) emissions at the source level and
update the electronic reporting of emission statements to adapt with
advancements and Federal requirements; and conform the State's rules on
air permits to the EPA's NSR requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> to
ensure a source does not adversely impact the EPA established National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Other revisions New Jersey made,
which the EPA is proposing to approve with this notice of proposed
rulemaking, will conform administrative penalties to the proposed rules
and correct errors and inconsistencies throughout the State's SIP.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 30, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2023-0252 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (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 electronically through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Ferreira, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3127, or by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aacccfd8d8cfc3d8cb84c4c3c9c2c5c6cbd9eacfdacb84cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5335362121363a21327d3d3a303b3c3f3220133623327d343c25">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Summary of the SIP Revision and the EPA's Analysis
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submittals consisting of new rules, repeals, and amendments
to subchapter 8, subchapter 16, subchapter 17, subchapter 18,
subchapter 19, subchapter 21, and subchapter 22 of New Jersey
Administrative Code, Title 7, Chapter 27 (N.J.A.C. 7:27), as well as to
subchapter 3 of N.J.A.C., Title 7, Chapter 27A.
New Jersey's revisions to N.J.A.C. 7:27 implement changes based on
the experience the State has gained in response to disruptions caused
by natural disasters such as Superstorm Sandy and discussions that the
State has held with representatives of the regulated community and
environmental groups. New Jersey's revisions include exemptions from
air emission control and permitting requirements that will provide
flexibility for facilities to use low-emitting temporary and portable
equipment to improve resiliency during emergency situations.
Additionally, New Jersey's revisions update HAP reporting
thresholds using the most recent science-based methodologies; amend the
rules governing emissions statements to require each facility to report
criteria pollutants and precursors (including PM<INF>2.5</INF> and
ammonia) at the source level; revise the rules governing certification
and electronic submittal of emissions statements; revise the New Source
Review (NSR) requirements to implement the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM<INF>2.5</INF>); and modify
penalty provisions to provide consistency with the State's revisions
being proposed for approval within this notice. For the reasons herein
stated, the EPA proposes to approve the revisions made by New Jersey to
strengthen the effectiveness of the State's SIP.
II. EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Submittal
On December 14, 2017, New Jersey submitted to the EPA, proposed SIP
revisions to subchapter 8, subchapter 18, subchapter 21, and subchapter
22 of N.J.A.C. 7:27. Additionally, on August 23, 2018, New Jersey
submitted proposed revisions to subchapter 8, subchapter 16, subchapter
17, subchapter 19, subchapter 21 and subchapter 22 of N.J.A.C. 7:27,
and to subchapter 3.10 of N.J.A.C., Title 7, Chapter 27A. These
proposed revisions to the State's SIP and are listed in the following
table. This submission included supplemental materials such as
documentation of the public hearing, public comment period, and the
State's responses to public comments. These materials are in the EPA's
docket for this proposal.
[[Page 66734]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey regulation: Related SIP topic(s):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N.J.A.C. 7:27-8 (Subchapter Resiliency; PM2.5 in Air Permitting.
8).
N.J.A.C. 7:27-16 (Subchapter Resiliency.
16).
N.J.A.C. 7:27-17 (Subchapter Air Toxics Thresholds.
17).
N.J.A.C. 7:27-18 (Subchapter PM2.5 in Air Permitting.
18).
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19 (Subchapter Resiliency.
19).
N.J.A.C. 7:27-21 (Subchapter Air Toxics Thresholds; PM2.5 and Ammonia
21). Emission Statement Reporting.
N.J.A.C. 7:27-22 (Subchapter Air Toxics Thresholds; PM2.5 in Air
22). Permitting.
N.J.A.C. 7:27A-3.10 Penalty Provisions.
(Subchapter 3 of Chapter
27A).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revisions to Subchapter 8 (Related to Exemptions To Improve Resiliency
and PM2.5 in Air Permitting)
The EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's revisions to
subchapter 8, ``Permits and Certificates for Minor Facilities (and
Major Facilities Without an Operating Permit).'' Pertaining to the New
Jersey's August 23, 2018 submittal, with a State effective date of
January 16, 2018, the State's revisions to subchapter 8 include the
addition of definitions to N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.1, ``Definitions,'' for the
terms ``construction engine,'' ``emergency management activity,''
``open top surface cleaner,'' ``portable,'' ``rental facility,'' and
``stationary reciprocating engine,'' as well as amended definitions for
the terms ``emergency,'' ``hazardous waste,'' and ``potential to
emit.''
New Jersey's definition for the term ``construction engine'' within
this subchapter is identical to the definition for this term as it is
currently found in the current federally approved version of N.J.A.C.
7:27-19.1, with a State effective date of November 6, 2017. New
Jersey's definition for ``stationary reciprocating engine,'' which is
identical to the definition for the term that New Jersey inserts at
N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.1 and 19.1, has no substantive changes and is solely
being amended to improve readability. Similarly, the State's amended
definition for the term ``hazardous waste'' will correct typographical
errors. New Jersey's definition of ``emergency management activity'' is
derived from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) use of
the term and includes activities in advance since, in some instances,
it may be necessary to use equipment in advance to reduce the impact of
a potentially devastating event. Additionally, New Jersey's definition
of ``portable,'' found in this subchapter and subchapter 19 and 21 will
be consistent with the State's definition of that term in an August 4,
2011 Memorandum, ``Permit Applicability for Equipment and Source
Operations Operated During Construction, Repair and Maintenance
Events.'' \1\ Further, since there exists portable equipment for which
an air pollution permit is required, a definition for the term ``rental
facility'' is being added as a business that owns and rents or leases
portable equipment to another person(s) to prevent any confusion
regarding the application of exempt activities proposed for approval by
the EPA with this notice under subchapter 21. The term ``open top
surface cleaner'' is used in the existing N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.2 but is not
defined. Therefore, since the State regulates surface cleaners to
control the emissions from the VOC and HAP solvents used in this
equipment, New Jersey has inserted a definition to this subchapter to
provide consistency with the definition for the term that New Jersey
also added to subchapters 16 and 22 of N.J.A.C 7:27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum on Permit Applicability for Equipment and Source
Operations Operated During Construction, Repair and Maintenance
Events. <a href="https://www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/CRM_Permit_Applic.pdf">https://www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/CRM_Permit_Applic.pdf</a>.
The NJDEP Bureau of Air Permits, Trenton NJ (August 4, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, New Jersey's amended definition for ``emergency'' will
now be identical to the definition for the term currently found under
the existing federally approved N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.1 and 19.1. This
definition, which defines an ``emergency'' as a situation that arises
from a sudden and reasonably unforeseeable event beyond the control of
an owner or operator of a facility that requires immediate corrective
action to prevent a system collapse or to restore normal operations at
the facility, will coordinate with New Jersey's amended definition for
``emergency generator'' under N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.1 and 19.1, also being
proposed for approval by the EPA with this notice. Finally, the
definition for ``potential to emit'' was amended by New Jersey to align
with the deletion of components under N.J.A.C. 7:27-31. New Jersey's
amendments to definitions under N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.1, which the EPA is
proposing to approve with this notice, will improve resiliency during
emergencies or similar situations and strengthen New Jersey's SIP by
improving consistency and uniformity throughout the State's SIP.
Moreover, pertaining to New Jersey's December 14, 2017, submittal
to the EPA, with a State effective date of November 6, 2017, the
State's revisions to N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.1 include the addition of
definitions for the terms ``PM<INF>2.5</INF>'' and ``SO<INF>2</INF>,''
as well as amended definitions for ``major facility,'' ``NO<INF>X</INF>
or oxides of nitrogen,'' and ``PM<INF>10</INF>.'' Since the terms
``PM<INF>2.5</INF>'' and ``SO<INF>2</INF>'' are used but not defined in
N.J.A.C. 7:27-8, the EPA proposes to approve New Jersey's addition of
definitions for the terms at N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.1 which are consistent
with those currently in N.J.A.C. 7:27. New Jersey amended the term
``major facility'' to include major facility thresholds for
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> as a PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor, and
SO<INF>2</INF> as a PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor to be consistent with
Federal requirements since the current SIP approved definition includes
thresholds for both NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>, but as ozone
precursors, and not as PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors. For consistency
with the definition of NO<INF>X</INF> elsewhere in N.J.A.C. 7:27, the
EPA proposes to approve New Jersey's amended definition of
``NO<INF>X</INF>'' to add the alternative for the term, ``oxides of
nitrogen.'' Finally, New Jersey's definition for ``PM<INF>10</INF>''
which the EPA is proposing to approve with this notice will replace the
term ``micrometers'' with the equivalent and more commonly used term
``microns.''
Furthermore, the EPA proposes to approve New Jersey's revisions to
Table A, ``Reporting and SOTA thresholds'' of 8 Appendix 1, to include
a reporting threshold and state of the art (SOTA) threshold for
PM<INF>2.5</INF> that are the same as the existing thresholds in the
table for PM<INF>10</INF>, since PM<INF>2.5</INF> is a subset of
PM<INF>10</INF>. The State's revisions will strengthen permitting
requirements regarding PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and consequently
strengthen New Jersey's SIP to be consistent with the Federal
requirements. Lastly, New Jersey proposed further revisions to
subchapter 8 that EPA will address in a separate rulemaking action.
Revisions to Subchapter 16 (Related to Exemptions To Improve
Resiliency)
The EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's revisions to
subchapter 16, ``Control and Prohibition of Air
[[Page 66735]]
Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds.'' The State's revisions to
N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.1, ``Definitions,'' include the addition of
definitions for the terms ``open top surface cleaner'' and ``PJM
Interconnection or PJM'' and amendments to definitions for the terms
``emergency generator'' and ``stationary reciprocating engine.''
The terms ``open top surface cleaner'' and ``PJM Interconnection or
PJM'' are used in the existing federally approved N.J.A.C. 7:27-16 but
are not defined. Therefore, as previously mentioned within this notice,
a definition for ``open top surface cleaner'' was added by New Jersey
to this subchapter to provide consistency with the definition for the
term which New Jersey also added to subchapters 8 and 22 of N.J.A.C
7:27. Additionally, since New Jersey defined an ``emergency generator''
as being operated during power outages and voltage reductions issued by
PJM, a definition for ``PJM Interconnection'' or ``PJM,'' which was
previously used in the regulations but not defined, was added to
subchapter 16 by the State to define the regional electricity
transmission organization. As previously stated within this notice, New
Jersey's amended definition for ``stationary reciprocating engine'' has
no substantive changes and was merely amended to improve readability
and provide consistency with the definition for the term in other
subchapters of N.J.A.C. 7:27.
The EPA also proposes to approve New Jersey's amended definition
for the term ``emergency generator.'' The State's revised definition
for ``emergency generator'' will expand the allowable use of permitted
emergency generators to provide electrical power when the primary
source of energy is unavailable following a power disruption that
results from construction, repair, or maintenance activity at a
facility for a limit of no more than 30 days in any calendar year.
There will be no similar time limit for the use of an emergency
generator following the issuance of a voltage reduction by PJM or
during an emergency, as is defined under the definition for the term
``emergency'' within the current federally approved version of this
subchapter. This proposed allowance will not include operation during
performance of normal testing and maintenance procedures on emergency
generators as recommended by the manufacturer and provided under
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.2(d)(1). Moreover, emergency generators will continue
to be subject to permit requirements at N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.2(c)(1) and
paragraph 11 of the definition of ``significant source operation'' at
N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1.
Facilities that experience a power disruption because of
construction, repair, or maintenance may be forced to shut down their
operations due the unavailability of an accessible power source. New
Jersey states in its submission that ``the time required to obtain a
permit for a generator or other portable equipment to be used in an
emergency could result in unacceptably delayed responses to emergency
situations.'' The practical solution to remedy power disruptions that
result from construction, repair, or maintenance is to allow facilities
to use their pre-installed emergency generators for a limited time.
Such an approach has many benefits. First, it will minimize downtime to
the operating facility, as the process of firing a pre-installed
generator unit is rather expeditious. This will enable affected
businesses to be more resilient to disruptions with as little
interruption to business operations as possible. Second, operating a
pre-installed emergency unit instead of a rental unit is beneficial to
the environment because the evidence points to such pre-installed units
being better maintained, thereby resulting in higher operating
performance and less pollution. Finally, as the incentive for not
reporting emissions resulting from the unpermitted use of emergency
generators under such conditions at facilities with a facility-wide
potential-to-emit that is less than the reporting thresholds in Table 1
at N.J.A.C. 7:27-21.2(a) is removed, regulators would be expected to
have access to more reliable actual emissions data, which could then be
used to improve air quality modeling and data analysis.
Moreover, as New Jersey mentions in their submission to the EPA,
following Superstorm Sandy, there has been an increase in the number of
permitted emergency generators being operated on natural gas (NJDEP has
issued 461 air permits for natural gas-fired emergency generators from
2013 through 2016). Additionally, as clarified by New Jersey, in an
email provided within the docket for this proposed rulemaking, although
facilities are asked to acquire Tier 3 or 4 emergency generator
rentals, the majority of rental emergency generators are diesel fuel-
fired (Tier 2 or less). Natural gas combustion produces less off-
gassing than anything achieved by diesel; therefore, a positive
environmental impact is expected from this proposed allowance of
permitted onsite emergency generators following a power disruption that
results from construction, repair, or maintenance activity at a
facility, since many of the recently permitted emergency generators are
natural gas fired. Furthermore, in its submittal, New Jersey asserted
that even if an existing on-site permitted emergency generator is a
Tier 2 diesel-fired engine, and not natural gas-fired, the unnecessary
mobile emissions created from the transport of a Tier 2 rental
emergency generator to and from a facility, especially if the mobile
source is also fueled by diesel, would result in a negative air quality
impact.
Per the comments New Jersey received in response to the proposed
revised definition for the term ``emergency generator,'' the EPA
acknowledges that it is not currently feasible for the State to
accurately quantify the air quality impact of allowing the use of
onsite emergency generators during power disruptions that result from
construction, repair, and maintenance at a facility since emissions
from these sources under these circumstances are not reported to the
State unless these sources are located at a facility with a facility-
wide potential-to-emit that is equal to or greater than the reporting
thresholds in Table 1 at N.J.A.C. 7:27-21.2(a). However, as previously
stated, with the removal of the incentive to not report the emissions
resulting from the unpermitted use of emergency generators under such
conditions, it is expected that further quantifying the air quality
impact of such usage would become possible.
Although the EPA believes New Jersey's amended definition for
``emergency generator'' provides air quality benefits, the structure of
New Jersey's amended definition, which includes the allowable use of
emergency generators for up to 30 days following a power disruption
that results from construction, repair, or maintenance activity at a
facility, is not, on its face, consistent with EPA's established
definition for the term. Nonetheless, the EPA does not believe this is
a sufficient justification for disapproval of the definition. As
previously detailed, the EPA believes the amended definition adds
further constraints on the use of emergency generators and that a
positive environmental impact is expected. Thus, while the EPA is
proposing to approve the amended definition for ``emergency
generator,'' the EPA advises that, for clarity, New Jersey consider
creating and submitting for SIP approval: a definition that parallels
EPA's definition of ``emergency generator'' and a separate provision
that allows for the use of emergency generators following a power
disruption that results from
[[Page 66736]]
construction, repair, or maintenance activity at a facility. In
summary, since this proposed expanded use of emergency generators will
not interfere with maintenance and attainment of the NAAQS and a
positive environmental impact is expected, EPA proposes to approve the
revision.
Additional revisions to subchapters 16, that the EPA is proposing
to approve will update N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.4 to prevent any potential
confusion by providing units of measure for inputs within the existing
equation for calculating the emission factor to be utilized when
determining the total annual emission rate for a storage tank. The EPA
is proposing to approve New Jersey's deletion of subparts 16.6(a)
through (i) to simplify the codified rules since the specified date in
the most recent federally approved rule has passed and is no longer
applicable to open top tanks and surface cleaners that contain VOC and
to solvent cleaning operations. The EPA is also proposing to approve
the State's revision which will remedy confusion with existing N.J.A.C.
7:27-16.6(j)(3) that currently prohibits the use of water, which is
technically a solvent, in cleaning machines. The EPA is also proposing
to approve the State's amendment to subpart 16.16 to improve clarity
and address a holdover from a prior version of these rules.
Furthermore, New Jersey's revision to N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.16(d)(4) is
being proposed for approval by the EPA and will regulate VOC with a
vapor pressure greater than 14.7 psia by establishing the source gas
range classification based solely on the percent by volume of the VOC
in a source gas emitted from source operation.
Furthermore, the EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's deletion
of N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.17(b)(1), which required the submission of a
demonstration by certain source operations subject to N.J.A.C. 7:27-
16.17(a)(1), being this provision no longer has any effect since
submission was due October 26, 1994. Consequently, subchapter 16.17(e),
(l), and (r), which relate only to N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.17(b)(1), were also
removed by the State. In conclusion, all the previously detailed
revisions New Jersey made to subchapter 16 are being proposed for
approval by the EPA with this notice since it is expected they will
improve resiliency during emergencies or similar situations and
strengthen New Jersey's SIP by improving uniformity throughout N.J.A.C.
7:27.
Revisions to Subchapter 17 (Related to Air Toxics Thresholds)
The EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's revisions to
subchapter 17, now entitled, ``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution
by Toxic Substances and Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' The State's
revisions, which add a definition to N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.1,
``Definitions,'' for the term ``hazardous air pollutant'' or ``HAP,''
necessitate further revisions to the subchapter to update and
consolidate New Jersey's reporting thresholds for 185 of the air
contaminants that are identified as HAPs under 42 U.S.C. 7412(b). It
should be noted that while 42 U.S.C. 7412(b) contains 187 HAPs, New
Jersey's rules will contain reporting thresholds for 185 of the
federally listed HAPs since the State regulates the two remaining
federally listed HAPS, radionuclides, and mineral fibers, including
asbestos, through its Radiation Protection rules.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ New Jersey Radiation Regulation Downloads including N.J.A.C.
7:28 and the Radiation Protection Act. <a href="https://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/njacdown.html">https://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/njacdown.html</a>. The NJDEP's Radiation Protection Element (last
updated February 6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey promulgated the existing HAP reporting thresholds more
than 25 years ago and has not updated them since. Current research and
scientific advancements in toxicology have generated new and modified
HAP unit risk factors and reference concentrations. In addition,
technological improvements have produced more accurate air quality
modeling computer programs. In some cases, these improvements and
advances have indicated the existing HAP thresholds are not stringent
enough to be protective of human health and the environment. In others,
it has been determined the thresholds can be less stringent and still
protect health and the environment, lessening the regulatory burden on
applicants.
Under the most recent SIP approved HAP thresholds for New Jersey,
the State regulated only 13 HAPs under N.J.A.C. 7:27-17. The existing
reporting and SOTA thresholds for these 13 HAPs, identified by New
Jersey as ``toxic substances,'' were listed under N.J.A.C. 7:27-8
Appendix 1, Table A and B. To simplify cross-references, the EPA,
therefore, proposes to approve New Jersey's revisions which relocate,
consolidate, and update all the HAP reporting and SOTA thresholds from
Tables A and B of Appendix 1 in N.J.A.C. 7:27-8, and Table B of the
Appendix in N.J.A.C. 7:27-22, to N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.9. The State's
revisions to update regulations related to HAPs in subchapter 17
reflects the most recent science on air toxics and ensures that the
State remains protective of public health and welfare without placing
undue burden on industry. New Jersey's procedure for updating the HAP
thresholds was based on scientific advancements detailing the latest
scientifically generated risk factors and exposure assessment
techniques, technological improvements producing more accurate air
quality modeling computer programs, and robust statistical evaluation
of maximum ambient concentrations of HAPs for a range of stack heights
and property line distances through the AMS/USEPA Regulatory Model
(AERMOD) modeling system (Version 15181).
Under N.J.A.C. 7:27, for New Jersey to determine the type of permit
modification that a facility must submit, a facility must conduct a
health risk assessment, as described in Technical Manual 1003, for the
HAPs that it identifies.\3\ With the revisions New Jersey made, which
the EPA is proposing to approve with this notice, if a risk assessment
indicates potential HAP emissions to be above the established threshold
and non-negligible, the facility must modify the source operation to
lower the risk to the point where the output shows a negligible risk or
consider other risk reduction measures. With the implementation of the
more comprehensive health risk assessment, which is expected to further
reduce risk from the health impacts associated with discharges, and its
consideration of numerous variables including stack heights, discharge
direction, potential for aerodynamic downwash, and health impact on the
surrounding communities, portions of existing N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.4 are
therefore redundant. Therefore, the EPA proposes to approve New
Jersey's deletion of existing N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.4(a) and (b), which
requires specific conditions be met regarding the discharge for 11 of
the 13 HAPs that New Jersey previously regulated under the most recent
federally approved version of subchapter 17. Moreover, N.J.A.C. 7:27-
17.4(a) and (b) evaluate only 11 toxic substances, all of which are a
subset of the list of HAPs, while the health risk assessment procedure
evaluates all 185 HAPs, thereby providing more protection from air
toxics to surrounding communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Guidance on Preparing a Risk Assessment for Air Contaminant
Emissions: Technical Manual 1003 <a href="https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/boss/technical-manuals/1003.pdf">https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/boss/technical-manuals/1003.pdf</a>. The NJDEP Division of Air
Quality (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, the EPA also proposes to approve New Jersey's removal
of
[[Page 66737]]
definitions under N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.1 for the terms ``aerodynamic
downwash,'' ``effective stack height,'' and ``stack or chimney'' being
they are no longer required as they are solely referenced under
provisions N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.4(a) and (b). Further, the State's deletion
of N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.4(a) and (b) necessitated an amendment to what was
previously N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.9(a) and made provisions under the previous
version of N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.4 inapplicable to the benzene constituent
of gasoline discharged to the atmosphere from storage tanks or transfer
operations. N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.9 is now listed as N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.8 and
N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.8(a), previously N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.9(a), is amended to
remove the exemption of benzene constituents of gasoline from N.J.A.C.
7:27-17.4. The New Jersey revisions now subject benzene to the health
risk assessment which is intended to reduce health risks from
discharges as previously detailed. Therefore, with this notice of
proposed rulemaking, the EPA proposes to approve all the previously
mentioned revisions that New Jersey made to subchapter 17 as they will
strengthen the State's SIP by updating the HAP reporting thresholds to
incorporate the latest scientifically generated risk factors and
exposure assessment techniques.
Revisions to Subchapter 18 (Related to PM2.5 in Air Permitting)
The EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's revisions to
subchapter 18, ``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from New or
Altered Sources Affecting Ambient Air Quality (Emission Offset
Rules).'' In 1997, the EPA first established annual and 24-hour NAAQS
for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. PM<INF>2.5</INF> includes all particulate matter
having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5
microns, including condensable particulate matter. After establishing
NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, the EPA promulgated PM<INF>2.5</INF>
permitting requirements, which New Jersey's amendments to this
subchapter are intended to address. The EPA developed the Federal New
Source Review (NSR) program to ensure that the construction and
modification of sources of air contaminant emissions do not adversely
impact the ambient levels of a criteria pollutant for which the EPA
established a NAAQS. As part of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
implementation, the EPA expanded NSR requirements to include
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its precursors (71 FR 28321, May 16, 2008). The
revisions New Jersey made, which will conform the State's rules to the
EPA's NSR requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, are being proposed for
approval into the SIP with this rulemaking by the EPA.
New Jersey's revisions to subchapter 18 include the addition of
definitions to N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.1, ``Definitions,'' for the terms
``PM<INF>2.5</INF>'' and ``PM<INF>2.5</INF> inter-pollutant offset'' as
well as an amended definition for ``respective criteria pollutant''
which incorporates new requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its
precursors by identifying NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> as
precursors of PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Thus, the definition for ``respective
criteria pollutant'' will include PM<INF>2.5</INF> as a respective
criteria pollutant for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF>. PM<INF>2.5</INF> is emitted to the atmosphere in two
ways: primary PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions are discharged directly from a
stack; and secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions are formed downwind
from the stack when PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor gases, such as
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>, are transformed through physical or
chemical processes to fine particulates (73 FR 28321, at 28326 through
28328, May 16, 2008). The EPA proposes to approve New Jersey's
definition for the term ``PM<INF>2.5</INF> inter-pollutant offset''
which will be consistent with the Federal requirements and will
simplify provisions in N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.5 that refer to this type of
emission offsetting.
The Emission Offset rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-18 apply to a facility
if the facility has the potential to emit any of the air contaminants
listed in N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.2(a)(1) at a level equal to or exceeding the
threshold level in the rule. Thus, the EPA is proposing to approve New
Jersey's amendment at N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.2(a)(1) which will strengthen
the State's SIP by adding PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF> (as PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors), to the list of air
contaminants and by setting potential to emit applicability threshold
levels for the previously listed air contaminants. These revisions to
threshold levels will impose conditions upon growth and development to
ensure that new construction, industrial growth and development, and
modification of sources of air contaminant emissions do not result in
increased emissions that could negatively impact maintenance or
attainment of NAAQS in an area within the State.
The Emission Offset program also avoids further degradation of air
quality by requiring an air quality impact analysis pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.4. The EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's
revisions to include annual and 24-hour significant air quality impact
levels (or SILs) for PM<INF>2.5</INF> at Table 1 under N.J.A.C. 7:27-
18.4, which are identical to that which the EPA established in Appendix
S and its rules at 40 CFR 51.165(b). This revision will require an
applicant seeking a permit for a proposed new source or proposed
modification of an existing source for which there would be a
significant net emission increase (SNEI) of any air contaminant listed
in Table 3 of N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.7, to conduct an air quality impact
analysis to demonstrate that the allowable emission increases from the
proposed new or modified source would not cause or contribute to a
violation of an applicable NAAQS. The EPA proposes to approve New
Jersey's modification which will reinforce air permitting requirements
related to PM<INF>2.5</INF> and is expected to improve air quality.
Additionally, the EPA proposes to approve New Jersey's amendments
to Table 2 under N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.5(c) which would establish minimum
offset ratios for increased emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its
precursors of 1.0:1.0, which is the same offset ratio as set forth in
Appendix S, Section IV.A and Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 173(c). The
State's amendments to Table 2 also address how nearby the emission
reductions must be to a facility to be considered emission offsets and
ensure that the emission reductions for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its
precursors may be obtained at any distance from the facility's address.
The EPA also proposes to approve the State's amended N.J.A.C. 7:27-
18.5(f)(1) which will establish a minimum offset ratio of 1.00:1.00 for
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> (as PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors). New
Jersey's amendments to N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.5(g) and N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.5(l),
allow PM<INF>2.5</INF> inter-pollutant offsets, which is the use of
creditable emission reductions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its precursors
(NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>) to offset increases of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its precursors, removing the restriction that the
emission reductions must be to the same air contaminant category. The
State's revisions, which the EPA proposes to approve with this notice,
better reflect the requirements of Appendix S for criteria pollutants,
such as PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its precursors, and will make the
provisions of subchapter 18 more consistent with Federal regulations.
Furthermore, under the revised N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.5(l), a facility
that proposes to use PM<INF>2.5</INF> inter-pollutant offsets must use
one of three methods to demonstrate that there is a net air quality
benefit from the ratio that it proposes. This revision from New Jersey
will remove the restriction that emission reductions must be for the
same air contaminant category. The EPA is proposing to approve this
revision since this is expected to improve air quality by allowing a
facility to offset PM<INF>2.5</INF> with reductions of either
SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> emissions as offsets (but only if
these are being offset as precursors to PM<INF>2.5</INF>),
[[Page 66738]]
and not limit a facility to offset PM<INF>2.5</INF> solely with
reductions of PM<INF>2.5</INF>. The State's new N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.5(m)
clarifies that the permit applicant would need to secure NO<INF>X</INF>
offsets only once (based on the more stringent offset ratio) when
offset ratios (for NO<INF>X</INF> as an ozone precursor or
NO<INF>X</INF> as a PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor, or both) would apply
and when NO<INF>X</INF> offsets are required both for ozone and for
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. New Jersey's amended N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.5(n) prohibits
the use of PM<INF>2.5</INF> inter-pollutant offsets for use in a
determination of significant net emission increase (SNEI), being that
EPA is not allowing inter-pollutant offsets for SNEI purposes at this
time (as stated in the preamble to the 2008 final rule (73 FR 28321)),
since doing so would be resource-intensive and demonstrating the net
air quality benefit of a single source trade through air quality
modeling is difficult. The EPA proposes to approve all the previously
mentioned revisions New Jersey made as it believes these modifications
will further strengthen the State's SIP and improve air quality.
Finally, the EPA also proposes to approve New Jersey's addition of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its precursors (NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>)
to the list of air contaminants in N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.7, Table 3; as well
as the State's established SNEI levels for these newly added air
contaminants. If a facility emits or proposes to emit an air
contaminant at a level greater than the SNEI threshold, the facility
must obtain an air permit that includes non-attainment NSR (NNSR)
requirements, such as offsets. New Jersey will not issue an air permit
that would result in an exceedance of a NAAQS. With the revisions New
Jersey made to subchapter 18, that the EPA is proposing to approve,
requirements for applicants to secure emission offsets in accordance
with the subchapter will strengthen the State's SIP and improve air
quality.
Revisions to Subchapter 19 (Related to Exemptions To Improve
Resiliency)
The EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's revisions to
subchapter 19, ``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides
of Nitrogen.'' The State's revisions to subchapter 19 will correct
inconsistences and typographical errors in the subchapter, amend
provisions within the subchapter applicable to emergency generators,
and revise exemptions to improve resiliency during and following
significant events.
Under N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.1, ``Definitions,'' revisions New Jersey
made, which the EPA is proposing to approve into the State's SIP,
include the addition of definitions for the terms ``portable'' and
``PJM interconnection;'' revisions to definitions for ``stationary
reciprocating engine,'' ``construction engine'' and ``emergency
generator;'' and the deletion of definitions for the terms ``MEG
alert,'' ``budget source'' and ``load dispatcher.'' The definitions for
``portable,'' ``PJM interconnection,'' ``stationary reciprocating
engine,'' ``construction engine'' and ``emergency generator'' will be
consistent with the definitions for the terms previously discussed
within this notice and being proposed for approval by the EPA.
Furthermore, the definitions for the terms ``MEG alert,'' ``budget
source,'' and ``load dispatcher'' were deleted by the State because
they are only used in this subchapter in connection with provisions
under the subchapter (N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.24) that no longer exist and
will be unnecessary with the finalizing of this rulemaking.
New Jersey's amended definition for the term ``emergency
generator,'' being proposed for approval with this notice, identifies
the allowable uses for emergency generators. Thus, subparagraph 3 under
the current SIP approved definition for ``emergency generator'' within
subchapter 19.1, which details the use of an emergency generator for
repair and maintenance, is proposed to be relocated to amended N.J.A.C.
7:27-19.2(d)1. Although emergency generators are technically stationary
reciprocating engines, and therefore subject to permit requirements at
N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.2(c)(1) and paragraph 11 of the definition of
``significant source operation'' at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1, due to their
limited use, they are not subject to any VOC RACT rules under N.J.A.C.
7:27-16 and there are no applicable presumptive NO<INF>X</INF> RACT
emission limits under N.J.A.C. 7:27-19. Currently, within subchapter
19, the only NO<INF>X</INF> RACT rules applicable to emergency
generators are recordkeeping requirements listed at N.J.A.C. 7:27-
19.11. However, in the current SIP approved N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.2(d), the
existing language is not precise and fails to make it clear that
recordkeeping is the only NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirement applicable to
emergency generators. Thus, the EPA proposes to approve the State's
revised N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.2(d), which improves readability and clarifies
that recordkeeping satisfies all the NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements
applicable to emergency generators under subchapter 19.
In addition, the State has recognized and expressed the need for
public water systems, wastewater and stormwater systems, and sludge
management facilities to perform normal testing and maintenance on
their emergency generators, regardless of air quality, during the 48
hours prior to a National Weather Service-designated named storm
impacting the facility's area of the State. Thus, New Jersey's amended
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.2(d)(2) reflects the requirements for such testing and
will require notification to the State when air quality is forecast to
be unhealthy or worse during that time of testing.
Under subchapter 19, the term ``portable'' is being proposed to be
defined as being ``not attached to a permanent foundation, and designed
and capable of being carried or moved from one location to another by
means of wheels, skids, carrying handles, dolly, trailer, platform, or
similar device.'' Thus, being that retrofitting engines powering
portable equipment to meet NO<INF>X</INF> emission standards would make
such equipment no longer truly portable, the EPA proposes to approve
the State's new N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.2(g). This revision will exclude
engines that are not connected to the electric power distribution grid,
not replacing grid power, and are portable and supplying power only to
portable equipment from the provisions of subchapter 19. Nevertheless,
engines which are connected to the electric power distribution grid or
are replacing grid power will not be exempt and will remain subject to
the NO<INF>X</INF> emission standards of subchapter 19 (N.J.A.C. 7:27-
19.8). Additionally, since the EPA considers portable equipment
remaining on site for more than a year to be a stationary source, under
such qualifying circumstances, portable equipment would not be exempt
from the NO<INF>X</INF> emission standards of subchapter 19 and would
be subject to applicable Federal regulations.
In effort to prevent the requirement that a facility operate a
boiler or indirect heat exchanger during a given calendar year quarter
solely for the purpose of performing an annual adjustment of the
combustion process, as required under existing N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.7(g)(1)
through (3), the EPA is proposing to approve the State's new N.J.A.C.
7:27-19.7(g)(4). This amendment will allow the owner/operator of an
industrial/commercial/institutional boiler or other indirect heat
exchanger that is not used at least quarterly to adjust the combustion
process within seven days after the next operation of the boiler or
indirect heat exchanger. The EPA proposes to approve New Jersey's
revision which will strengthen the State's SIP by eliminating
unnecessary operation of a boiler or indirect heat exchanger that can
potentially negatively impact air quality. Moreover, the EPA is
proposing to approve New Jersey's revisions to
[[Page 66739]]
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.8(a), (b), and (c) which will correct minor errors
such as replacing ``370kW'' with ``37kW'' and ``or more'' with ``or
greater,'' when referring to engine output in (a) through (c). These
revisions will provide consistency with terminology and enhance clarity
to N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.8 since the recordkeeping requirements for
emergency generators do not make sense if they are applicable to only
those emergency generators with a maximum rated power output of exactly
37 kW hours. The EPA also proposes to approve the State's revisions to
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.11(a) which will replace the term ``maximum rated
output'' with the correct term, ``maximum rated power output,'' and
clarify that the recordkeeping requirements extend to emergency
generators with a maximum power output rating of 37 kW or more by
adding the phrase ``or greater.''
Furthermore, the EPA also proposes to approve New Jersey's
amendments to N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.16(a)(5) to correct the inaccurate
suggestion that oxygen (O<INF>2</INF>) is to be measured in parts per
million by volume on a dry basis (ppmvd). Oxygen is measured in
percent, as is correctly stated in the current federally approved
instructions at N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.16(a)(6). N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.24, which
concerns MEG alerts (periods when electric generating units operate at
emergency capacity) that occurred on or before November 15, 2005, is to
be repealed from the State's SIP since this date has long passed,
making these provisions obsolete and no longer having any effect. As
stated previously in the explanation of revisions to N.J.A.C. 7:27-
19.1, with the State's deletion of N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.24, the EPA is
proposing to approve the removal of the terms ``MEG alert,'' ``budget
source,'' and ``load dispatcher'' since they are only utilized in
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.24.
The EPA proposes to approve New Jersey's deletion of the 500-hours
allotted for natural gas curtailment at permitted facilities under
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.25(c)(4). The State's amended rule will allow a
permitted combustion source to continue to operate without interruption
during the full period of natural gas curtailment and will require the
combustion source to return to using only natural gas or obtain an
appropriate permit once the supply of natural gas is restored. The
proposed deletion of this provision will not remove the requirement for
a source to control its emissions and, if a source has controls, it
must continue to operate such controls whenever technically feasible,
regardless of the fuel type being combusted. Additionally, the owner or
operator of a source will be required to satisfy the recordkeeping
requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.19(d) and (e) and incorporate such
records into reports submitted to the State as required at N.J.A.C.
7:27-19.19(g) and in accordance with the reporting requirements of
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.25(d)(1)-(4).
The EPA acknowledges New Jersey's determination that during
significant events and their aftermath, the operation of a facility may
be crippled if natural gas remains unavailable for more than 500 hours
(roughly 20 days) during a consecutive 12-month period. The existing
regulations require an owner or operator of such facilities to obtain
or modify facility permits to enable the combustion source to operate
on liquid fuel and to have the combustion source comply with applicable
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits under N.J.A.C. 7:27-19, while the fuel
oil or other liquid fuel is burned. Modifying a permit is a complex
process that requires thorough evaluation and consideration, which may
be made even more difficult when the State is faced with addressing
competing priorities following significant events and their aftermath.
New Jersey states in its submittal to the EPA, that few facilities have
reached the 500-hour limit under the existing N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.25(c)(4)
and have only done so during significant weather events and their
aftermath, which are the circumstances this rule was designed to
provide resiliency for. In discussions with facilities following the
aftermath of Superstorm Sandy and other major storms, it was made clear
that the switch to oil was a necessity as natural gas was sometimes
limited. By removing the 500 hours limitation, operations such as
essential services, can continue to be available even if the natural
gas curtailment period goes beyond 500 hours.
Historically, natural gas curtailments usually occur during extreme
cold weather events that require the burning of large amounts of
natural gas and fuel oil to keep private dwellings warm. In order to
manage available supplies during these frigid days, a curtailment of
natural gas for large industrial users is implemented when natural gas
supplies are forecasted to run low during an extended period of frigid
temperatures. Thus, the proposed deletion of the 500-hour limit
restriction for fuel oil use during potential extended natural gas
curtailments is appropriate. Additionally, any associated increase of
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions from the additional oil burning during
natural gas curtailments events in response to cold weather events is
not expected to be of significant concern since ozone exceedances occur
during the warmer months and not during the colder months. If natural
gas curtailment happens to last longer than 500 hours, it is not
advantageous to require a facility to shut down as they have no control
over the supply of natural gas, especially under emergency conditions.
It is critical that facilities like hospitals and emergency response
facilities be allowed to continue operating equipment for heating and
power. Furthermore, the proposed deletion of the 500-hour limit for the
use of fuel oil is expected to have a negligible environmental impact
because, historically, lengthy curtailments seldom occur.
Per the comments New Jersey received in response to the proposed
deletion of the 500-hour limit for natural gas curtailment, the EPA
acknowledges that it is not feasible for the State to quantify the air
quality impact that would be expected from the deletion of such a
provision. Since the State does not require facilities to report the
use of fuel oil during periods of natural gas curtailment, the
information needed to calculate the emissions impact is not available.
Additionally, the EPA acknowledges it is not possible to predict or
project when and for how long a natural gas curtailment may take place
in the future, and to what extent it is likely to exceed the 500-hour
limit previously in effect. Extreme weather events are predicted to
increase in severity and frequency in response to climate change, and
these are the events for which such a provision within this notice is
seeking to provide resiliency for. Thus, the EPA agrees with the
State's claim that deletion of the 500-hour limit will have a
negligible, albeit unquantifiable, environmental impact because the use
of the exemption for more than 500 hours will only be during the
occurrence of an exceptional event.
Finally, the EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's revision that
will address a discrepancy between existing N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.25(d) and
19.19(g). N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.25(d) refers to the submission of quarterly
reports; however, existing N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.19(g) provides for either
quarterly reports (N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.19(g)1) or annual reports (N.J.A.C.
7:27-19.19(g)(2), depending on whether a combustion source is equipped
with a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS). With the State's
revision to replace ``required quarterly'' in the existing version of
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.25(d) with a reference to N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.19(g), the
discrepancy is eliminated. This revision
[[Page 66740]]
will require quarterly reports if a combustion source has a CEMS and
annual reports if it does not in accordance with the existing N.J.A.C.
7:27-19.19(g). In conclusion, the EPA is proposing to approve New
Jersey's revisions to subchapter 19, as previously detailed within this
notice, since they will improve resiliency by enabling government and
business entities to respond swiftly and recover from emergency
situations.
Revisions to Subchapter 21 (Related to Air Toxics Thresholds and PM2.5
& Ammonia Emission Statement Reporting)
The EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's adoptions and
revisions to subchapter 21, ``Emission Statements.'' The State's
amendments to subchapter 21 modify outdated provisions and make
reporting requirements consistent with Federal guidelines. At N.J.A.C.
7:27-21.1, ``Definitions,'' the EPA proposes to approve the State's
update to the definition for ``Emission Statement Guidance Document''
to correct the internet address at which this document can be viewed so
that it corresponds to the most recent version of the document which is
updated annually. Additionally, a definition for ``RADIUS,'' which is
New Jersey's Remote Access Data Information User System and is utilized
for electronic submissions and interactions with the State, is now
defined to include reference to successor software which the State
intends to develop in the future for the same usage as RADIUS. This
reference to successor software will allow for the definition to adapt
with future technology and minimize confusion that may arise otherwise.
Finally, the State's amendments to the definition of
``PM<INF>2.5</INF>'' correct grammar and are intended to provide
clarity to PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission statement reporting.
New Jersey's subchapter 21 requires a facility with the potential
to emit an air contaminant in excess of the applicable threshold to
submit an Emission Statement. The existing rules require the reporting
of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ammonia at the facility-wide level, which means
that a facility would report a single value for each pollutant,
representing the total of all emissions of that pollutant from all
sources and/or equipment at that facility. This is inconsistent with
the Federal Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR), which require
the reporting of all criteria pollutants and precursors (including
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ammonia) at the source level for each facility.
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to approve New Jersey's amended N.J.A.C.
7:27-21.3(b) which will require the reporting of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and
ammonia at the source level to be consistent with the Federal AERR
reporting requirements.
The EPA anticipates that there will be no economic impact with the
proposed requirement of reporting PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ammonia at the
source level instead of the facility level. Reporting at the source
level will not require any additional effort since the source-level
emissions already have to be determined in order to calculate the
facility-level emissions. In addition, this level of reporting is
consistent with the current practice of the regulated community in New
Jersey, in accordance with Federal requirements. Furthermore, the EPA
proposes to approve the State's amended N.J.A.C. 7:27-21.3(b)(1)(ii)
and (2)(iii) which will require emissions for particular HAPs listed
under N.J.A.C. 7:27-21 Appendix 1, Table 1, that exceed the applicable
thresholds in proposed N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.9 to be included on emission
statements. Notably, this will not include hydrochloric acid,
hydrazine, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene, 1, 1, 1
trichloroethane, carbon dioxide and methane. As a result of the
previously discussed new HAP reporting thresholds for the State,
proposed for approval by the EPA with this rulemaking, emissions of
certain HAPs, which may have not exceeded the previous applicable
thresholds and were therefore not previously reported on emissions
statements, will now be required in some cases. This will improve air
quality by requiring the reporting of certain air toxics on emission
statements in conjunction with the newly proposed reporting thresholds
in this notice.
Moreover, New Jersey's amendment to N.J.A.C. 7:27-21.4 will
eliminate the option for permittees to submit emission statements
electronically through the less secure use of email, in favor of the
option to submit these statements through the State's secure internet
portal, NJDEP Online (<a href="http://www.njdeponline.com">www.njdeponline.com</a>). Under the proposed
revision, reference to email submissions is deleted and a facility will
continue to prepare its emission statement using RADIUS, as required
under the existing rules, but submit it electronically through NJDEP
Online. This revision is proposed for approval by the EPA since it will
provide the requisite level of security to satisfy the Federal Cross-
Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) and will improve ease of
access to emission statements by the State. This elimination of the
option to email an emission statement will also not result in a cost to
facilities because RADIUS is available without cost. Furthermore, New
Jersey no longer uses diskettes, so the EPA proposes to approve the
State's removal of reference to diskettes at N.J.A.C. 7:27-
21.4(b)(3)(ii).
In response to New Jersey's revisions at N.J.A.C. 7:27-21.3,
existing N.J.A.C. 7:27-21.5(e), which identifies when emissions are
reported at the facility-wide level and when they are reported at the
source level, is no longer necessary and is proposed by the EPA to be
deleted from the State's SIP. In practice, New Jersey states that the
regulated community has been reporting emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF>
and ammonia at the source level, and the State already implements this
source level reporting procedure to comply with AERR. Existing N.J.A.C.
7:27-21.8(b) provides methods of certifying an emission statement, with
(b)(1) governing certification of electronic submittals, and paragraph
(b)(2) governing certification of paper submittals. The State's amended
rule also provides certification methods, but separates the paragraphs
based on whether the emission statement is submitted through NJDEP
Online or delivered to NJDEP (on paper or an electronic medium) by mail
or courier service. These revisions to certification methods serve as a
clarification of the methods used and imposes no additional reporting
requirements. New Jersey's amendments which the EPA is proposing to
approve with this notice will enhance and provide clarity to
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ammonia emission statement reporting measures,
further strengthening the State's SIP.
Revisions to Subchapter 22 (Related to Air Toxic Thresholds and PM2.5
in Air Permitting)
The EPA will address New Jersey's revisions to subchapter 22,
``Operating Permits,'' submitted to the EPA alongside the submittals
previously detailed in this notice, with a separate rulemaking action
in the future.
Revisions to Section 3.10 (Subchapter 3 of Chapter 27A) (Related to
Exemptions To Improve Resiliency and Air Toxics Thresholds)
The EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's revisions to
subchapter 3, ``Civil Administrative Penalties and Requests for
Adjudicatory Hearings,'' under Chapter 27A, ``Air Administrative
Procedures and Penalties,'' to conform the administrative penalties of
this Section to the proposed rules in this notice. Pursuant to N.J.A.C
7:27A-3.10(m), violations of N.J.A.C. 7:27, whether the violations are
minor or non-
[[Page 66741]]
minor, have corresponding civil administrative penalty amounts for each
violation as set forth in the ``Civil Administrative Penalty Schedule''
of this subchapter. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to approve the
State's request to remove from the SIP penalties listed under N.J.A.C.
7:27A-3.10(m)(16) which correspond to the violation of provisions the
State repealed at N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.6(b) through (i) and which the State
has requested be removed from the SIP; the State's request to remove
from the SIP penalties listed under N.J.A.C. 7:27A-3.10(m)(16) which
correspond to the violation of provisions the State repealed at
N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.17(b)(1) and 16.17(e) and which the State has
requested be removed from the SIP; the State's request to remove from
the SIP penalties listed under N.J.A.C. 7:27A-3.10(m)(17) which
correspond to the violation of provisions the State repealed at
N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.4(a) and (b) and which the State has requested be
removed from the SIP; and State's request to remove from the SIP
penalties listed under N.J.A.C. 7:27A-3.10(m)(19) which correspond to
the violation of provisions the State repealed at N.J.A.C. 7:27-
19.24(b) and which the State has requested be removed from the SIP.
Similarly, the EPA proposes to approve New Jersey's revision to
N.J.A.C. 7:27A-3.10(m)(16) which previously corresponded to violation
of provisions at N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.6(n) and now corresponds to violation
of provisions at N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.6(l). As previously stated, the
State's revisions to this subchapter will conform the administrative
penalties of this section to the rule revisions New Jersey submitted to
the EPA for approval and ensure consistency throughout N.J.A.C. 7:27,
therefore, strengthening New Jersey's SIP.
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to review state choices,
and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the Act.
New Jersey provided a supplement to the SIP submissions being
proposed for approval with this rulemaking on May 16, 2023. The
supplemental submission briefed the EPA on Environmental Justice (EJ)
considerations within New Jersey by detailing the State's programs and
initiatives addressing the needs of communities with EJ concerns that
have been ongoing since 1998. Although New Jersey included
environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal, the
CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor
require such an evaluation.
In its supplement, New Jersey discusses addressing the needs of
communities with EJ concerns since 1998, including assisting in the
creation of the Environmental Equity Task Force in 1998, which
eventually became the Environmental Justice Advisory Council (EJAC).
These groups hold regular meetings that include EJ advocates and the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to discuss
and address environmental justice issues of concern.
New Jersey also details having implemented numerous initiatives,
collaborations, Administrative Orders and Executive Orders to address
the needs and concerns of overburdened communities. A timeline of New
Jersey's EJ actions implemented, including both prior to and after the
SIP submittals addressed within this notice was provided and is
indicative of the State's continued attention to EJ issues within the
state.
Administrative Orders (AO) and Executive Orders (E.O.) include New
Jersey's first EJ E.O. issued by Governor James E. McGreevey in 2004
(E.O. No. 96), an EJ E.O. issued by Governor Jon Corzine in 2009 (E.O.
No. 131), an EJ AO issued by NJDEP Commissioner Bob Martin in 2016 (AO
2016-08) and an EJ E.O. issued by Governor Phil Murphy in 2018 (E.O.
No. 23). Notably, U.S. Senator for New Jersey, Cory Booker, introduced
the first federal EJ bill in 2017 (S.1996--Environmental Justice Act of
2017).
Additionally, New Jersey also created the ``What's In My
Community'' \4\ tool, a GIS-mapping web application that allows a user
to see the air permits issued in their community. The tool also
identifies the overburdened communities, schools, hospitals, and
emergency services (Police and Fire departments). The public users can
also see measurements from air monitors using the tool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Mapping application used to find facilities with an air
permit registered with New Jersey's Division of Air Quality <a href="https://njdep.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=76194937cbbe46b1ab9a9ec37c7d709b">https://njdep.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=76194937cbbe46b1ab9a9ec37c7d709b</a>. The NJDEP Division
of Air Quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA did take EJ into consideration when reviewing New Jersey's
provisions being proposed for approval by the EPA within this notice;
however, the EPA determined that a comprehensive analysis of EJ would
not be appropriate for the provisions New Jersey submitted for
approval. New Jersey's provisions being proposed for approval by the
EPA within this notice address statewide matters, and since EJ issues
are more accurately captured when evaluating relatively smaller areas
or on a community level basis, the EPA determined it would not have
been appropriate to evaluate EJ concerns at a statewide level. As
previously stated, the CAA and applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation of EJ. In addition,
there is no information in the record indicating that this action is
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 and/or that this action
is expected to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or
environmental effects on a particular group of people.
Thus, the EPA expects that this proposed action will generally be
neutral or contribute to reduced environmental and health impacts on
all populations in New Jersey, including people of color and low-income
populations in New Jersey. At a minimum, this action is not expected to
worsen any air quality and it is expected this action will ensure the
State is meeting requirements to attain and/or maintain air quality
standards.
The EPA therefore concludes that this proposed rule will not have
or lead to disproportionately high or adverse human health or
environmental effects on communities with environmental justice
concerns. New Jersey evaluated environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal even though the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require an evaluation.
The EPA's evaluation of New Jersey's EJ considerations is described
above. The analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional
context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a
basis of the action. The EPA is taking action under the CAA on bases
independent of the State's evaluation of EJ.
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
The EPA proposes to approve New Jersey's revisions to N.J.A.C. 7:27
subchapter 8, ``Permits and Certificates for Minor Facilities (and
Major Facilities without an Operating Permit),'' section 8.1,
``Definitions;'' subchapter 18, ``Control and Prohibition of Air
Pollution from New or Altered Sources Affecting Ambient Air Quality
(Emission Offset Rules);'' and subchapter 21, ``Emission Statements,''
with State effective dates of November 6, 2017. In addition, the EPA
proposes to approve the State's revisions to N.J.A.C. 7:27 subchapter
8, ``Permits and Certificates for Minor Facilities (and
[[Page 66742]]
Major Facilities without an Operating Permit),'' section 8.1,
``Definitions;'' subchapter 16, ``Control and Prohibition of Air
Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds;'' subchapter 17, ``Control and
Prohibition of Air Pollution by Toxic Substances;'' subchapter 19,
``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Oxides of Nitrogen;''
subchapter 21, ``Emission Statements;'' and Chapter 27A, subchapter
3.10, ``Civil Administrative Penalties for Violations of Rules Adopted
Pursuant to the Act,'' with State effective dates of January 16, 2018.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to N.J.A.C. 7:27 subchapter 8, ``Permits and
Certificates for Minor Facilities (and Major Facilities without an
Operating Permit),'' section 8.1, ``Definitions;'' subchapter 16,
``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic
Compounds;'' subchapter 17, ``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution
by Toxic Substances;'' subchapter 18, ``Control and Prohibition of Air
Pollution from New or Altered Sources Affecting Ambient Air Quality
(Emission Offset Rules);'' subchapter 19, ``Control and Prohibition of
Air Pollution by Oxides of Nitrogen;'' subchapter 21, ``Emission
Statements;'' and Chapter 27A, subchapter 3.10, ``Civil Administrative
Penalties for Violations of Rules Adopted Pursuant to the Act'' as
described in section II, of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and at the EPA Region 2 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law(s) as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law(s). For that reason, this proposed action:
<bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11,
2023);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> 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.
In addition, this proposed SIP will not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rules do not have Tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
The NJDEP evaluated environmental justice as part of its SIP
submittal even though the CAA and applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require an evaluation. The EPA's evaluation of the
NJDEP's environmental justice considerations is described above in the
section titled, ``Environmental Justice Considerations.'' The analysis
was done for the purpose of providing additional context and
information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the
action. The EPA is taking action under the CAA on bases independent of
New Jersey's evaluation of environmental justice. Due to the nature of
the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. In
addition, there is no information in the record upon which this
decision is based that is inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O.
12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Lisa Garcia,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2023-21138 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 28, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.