Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 (PM2.5). 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 humancaused disasters; update HAP unit risk 

factors and reference concentrations to 

reflect current research, scientific, and 

technological advancements; update 

provisions to require the reporting of 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 

ferreira.nicholas@epa.gov. 

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 lowemitting 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 

PM2.5 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 (PM2.5); 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66734 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1Memorandum 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). 

New Jersey regulation: Related SIP topic(s): 

N.J.A.C. 7:27–8 (Subchapter 8) ...................................... Resiliency; PM2.5 in Air Permitting. 

N.J.A.C. 7:27–16 (Subchapter 16) .................................. Resiliency. 

N.J.A.C. 7:27–17 (Subchapter 17) .................................. Air Toxics Thresholds. 

N.J.A.C. 7:27–18 (Subchapter 18) .................................. PM2.5 in Air Permitting. 

N.J.A.C. 7:27–19 (Subchapter 19) .................................. Resiliency. 

N.J.A.C. 7:27–21 (Subchapter 21) .................................. Air Toxics Thresholds; PM2.5 and Ammonia Emission Statement Reporting. 

N.J.A.C. 7:27–22 (Subchapter 22) .................................. Air Toxics Thresholds; PM2.5 in Air Permitting. 

N.J.A.C. 7:27A–3.10 (Subchapter 3 of Chapter 27A) ..... Penalty Provisions. 

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. 

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 ‘‘PM2.5’’ and 

‘‘SO2,’’ as well as amended definitions 

for ‘‘major facility,’’ ‘‘NOX or oxides of 

nitrogen,’’ and ‘‘PM10.’’ Since the terms 

‘‘PM2.5’’ and ‘‘SO2’’ 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 PM2.5, NOX as a PM2.5

precursor, and SO2 as a PM2.5 precursor 

to be consistent with Federal 

requirements since the current SIP 

approved definition includes thresholds 

for both NOX and SO2, but as ozone 

precursors, and not as PM2.5 precursors. 

For consistency with the definition of 

NOX elsewhere in N.J.A.C. 7:27, the EPA 

proposes to approve New Jersey’s 

amended definition of ‘‘NOX’’ to add the 

alternative for the term, ‘‘oxides of 

nitrogen.’’ Finally, New Jersey’s 

definition for ‘‘PM10’’ 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 PM2.5 that are the same as 

the existing thresholds in the table for 

PM10, since PM2.5 is a subset of PM10. 

The State’s revisions will strengthen 

permitting requirements regarding PM2.5

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 preinstalled 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 potentialto-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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66736 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

2New 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). 

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). 

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

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 nonnegligible, 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. 

Consequently, the EPA also proposes 

to approve New Jersey’s removal of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 PM2.5. PM2.5 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 PM2.5, the EPA 

promulgated PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 NAAQS implementation, the EPA 

expanded NSR requirements to include 

PM2.5 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 

PM2.5, 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 ‘‘PM2.5’’ and ‘‘PM2.5 interpollutant offset’’ as well as an amended 

definition for ‘‘respective criteria 

pollutant’’ which incorporates new 

requirements for PM2.5 and its 

precursors by identifying NOX and SO2

as precursors of PM2.5. Thus, the 

definition for ‘‘respective criteria 

pollutant’’ will include PM2.5 as a 

respective criteria pollutant for PM2.5, 

NOX and SO2. PM2.5 is emitted to the 

atmosphere in two ways: primary PM2.5

emissions are discharged directly from a 

stack; and secondary PM2.5 emissions 

are formed downwind from the stack 

when PM2.5 precursor gases, such as 

NOX and SO2, 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 ‘‘PM2.5 interpollutant 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 

PM2.5, and NOX and SO2 (as PM2.5

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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5 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 NOX and SO2 (as PM2.5

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 PM2.5 inter-pollutant 

offsets, which is the use of creditable 

emission reductions of PM2.5 and its 

precursors (NOX and SO2) to offset 

increases of PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

with reductions of either SO2 or NOX

emissions as offsets (but only if these 

are being offset as precursors to PM2.5), 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66738 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

and not limit a facility to offset PM2.5

solely with reductions of PM2.5. The 

State’s new N.J.A.C. 7:27–18.5(m) 

clarifies that the permit applicant would 

need to secure NOX offsets only once 

(based on the more stringent offset ratio) 

when offset ratios (for NOX as an ozone 

precursor or NOX as a PM2.5 precursor, 

or both) would apply and when NOX

offsets are required both for ozone and 

for PM2.5. New Jersey’s amended 

N.J.A.C. 7:27–18.5(n) prohibits the use 

of PM2.5 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 PM2.5

and its precursors (NOX and SO2) 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 nonattainment 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 NOX RACT 

emission limits under N.J.A.C. 7:27–19. 

Currently, within subchapter 19, the 

only NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX

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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 (O2) 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66740 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 ‘‘PM2.5’’ correct grammar 

and are intended to provide clarity to 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 facilitywide 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 nonVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Sep 27, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM 28SEP1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66741 

4Mapping 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=76194937cbbe46b1

ab9a9ec37c7d709b. The NJDEP Division of Air 

Quality. 

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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66742 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

• 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); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a state program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2023–0040; FRL–11286– 

01–R6] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste;Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1