[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://www.regulations.gov. 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 https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. 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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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. https://www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/CRM_Permit_Applic.pdf. 
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. https://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/njacdown.html. 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 https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/boss/technical-manuals/1003.pdf. 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 (www.njdeponline.com). 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 https://njdep.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=76194937cbbe46b1ab9a9ec37c7d709b. 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 
www.regulations.gov 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>