ENCLOSURE 3 

November 16, 2009 New Jersey Register publication of proposed 

amendments to N.J.A.C. 7:27-9 

Nell' Jersev IS an Equal Opporlunitv Emplovcr I Prin/ed 011 Reevcled Paper alld Recvclahlc 

ENVIRONMENTAL !'ROTECTION 

independently owned and operated, not dominant in their field and that 

employ kwer than 100 full-time employees. The Department has 

determined that the rules proposed for readoption with amendments will 

not impose reporting. recordkeeping or other compliance requirements on 

small businesses. The rules proposed for readoption with amendments 

impose land management responsibilities on the Department. but nO[ on 

members of the general public. 

Smart Growth Impact 

Executive Order No. (2002) rcquires State agencies that adopt. 

amend or repeal any rule to describe the impact of the proposed rule on 

the achievement of smart growth and implementation of the New Jersey 

State Development and Redevelopment Plan (State Plan). NJ .SA. 

52:ISA-196 et seq. The Department has evaluated this rulemaking to 

determine the naturc and extent of the impact of readopting these rules 

with amendments on smart growth and the State Plan. The proposed 

readoption of the rules is expected to contribute to the preservation, 

proper management and public use of open space in its natural statc. and 

is consistent with the State Plan. Since the proposed amendments are not 

substantivc, thc Dcpartmcnt anticipates that thcy will havc no impact on 

the achievement of smart growth or on the implementation of the State 

Plan. 

Housing AlTordabilit~' Impact 

Pursuant to NJ.S.A. 52:14B-4, as amended eITective July 17.2008, by 

P.L. 2008. c. 46, the Department has evaluated the rules proposcd for 

rcadoption with amendments to determine their impact. if any. on the 

affordabillly of housing. Slncc these rules eoncem the management of 

State-owned natural areas. thc Dcpartment has detennincd that the rules 

will impose an insignificant impact hecause there is an extreme 

Wllikelihood thaI thc rules will evoke a change in the average costs 

associated with housing. 

Smart Growth Development Impact 

Pursuant to NJ.S.A. 52:14B-4. as amended effective July 17,2008, hy 

P.L. 2008, c. 46. the Department has evaluated the rules proposed for 

readoption with amendments to determine their impacl. if any on smart 

growth developmcnt. Since thcsc rules conccrn the managcment of Statcowned natural areas. the Department has determined that the rules will 

impose an insignificant impact because they do not impact the type or 

number of housing units, increase or decrease the availability of 

affordable housing in any manner, or affect new construction within 

Planning Areas L 2, or withill designated centers. under the State 

Development and Redevelopment Plan. 

Full text of the rules proposed for readoption may be found in the 

New Jersey Administrative Code at NJ.A.C. 7:5A. 

Full text of the proposed amendments follows (additions indicated in 

boldface thus: deletions indicated in brackets [thus]): 

SUBCHAPTER 1.	 NATURAL AREAS AND THE NATURAL
 

AREAS SYSTEM
 

7:5A-1.13 Natural Areas System 

(al The designated components of the Natural Areas System are as 

follows' 

L-~. (No change.) 

5. Bear Swamp East Natural Area:
 

i.-iii. (No change.)
 

iv. Administering Agency: Division of [Parks and Forestry] Fish and 

Wildlife. through IBclieplain State Forest] Millville Wildlife 

Management Area. 

6.-9. (No change.)
 

10. Capc Mav Wetlands Natural Arca:
 

i.-iii. (No change.)
 

1\. Administenng Agency: Division of [Parks and Porestry] Fish and
 

Wildlife. through Cape Ma~ IPoint State Park] Coastal Wetlands 

Wildlife Management Area: 

11.-18. (No change.) 

19. Ilacklebarney Natural Area:
 

i.-iii. (No change. I
 

PROPOSALS 

il'. Administering Agency: Division of Parks and Forestry. through 

[Voorhees State Park] Spruce Run Recreation Area: 

20.-23. (No change.) 

r2~. Liberty Park Natural Area: 

i. Location: Liberty State Park. Jersey City, Hudson County: 

ii. Management Objective: preservation of a salt marsh in upper New 

York Bay and created uplands: 

iii. Interim Classification: conservation preserve; 

iv. Administering Agency: Division of Parks and Forestry. through 

Libel1y State Park;] 

Rccodify cxisting 25.-32. as 24.-3L (No change in tCXl.) 

32. Richard J. Sullivan l'Iiatural Area: 

i. Location: Libert~' State Park, Jersey Ci~·. Hudson Count~':

ii. Management Objective; preservation of a salt marsh in uppcr 

New York Bar and created uplands; 

iii. Interim Classification: conservation preserve; 

h'. Administel'ing Agency: Division of Parks and Forestry, 

through Libert)· State Park; 

33.-44. (No change.) 

(a) 

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 

Air Quality Management 

Sulfur in Fuels 

Proposed Amendments: N.J.A.C. 7:27-9.2 

Proposed Repeal: N.J.A.C. 7:27-9.5 

Authorized By: Mark N. Mauricllo. Acting Commissioner. 

Department of Environmental Protection. 

Authority: NJ,S,A. 13:IB-3(e), 13:10-9 and 26:2C-I e! seq. 

Calendar Reference: See Summary below for explanation of 

exception to calcndar requirement. 

DEI' Dockel Number: 14-09-10/676. 

Proposal Number: PRN 2009-341. 

A public hearing concerning this proposal and the proposed revision 

to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) will be held on: 

Tuesday January 5, 2010 at 10:00 A.M. at: 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

First Floor Hearing Room 

40 I East State Street 

Trenton, New Jersey 

Directions to the hcaring room mal' bc found althc Dcpartmcnt"s 

website, http://wwv..•.state.nj.us/dep/where.htm. 

Submil written comments by January 15. 2010 to: 

Alice A. Previte, Esq. 

Attn: DEP Docket No. 14-09-10/676 

Office of Legal Affairs 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

401 East State Street 4th Floor 

PO Box 402 . 

Trenton, New Jersey OR625-0~02

Written comments may also be submitted at the public hearing. It is 

requested (but not required) that anyone submitting oral testimony at the 

publ ic hearing provide a copy of any prepared text to the stenographer at 

the hearing. 

The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) requests 

that commcntcrs submit comments on disk or CD, as well as on papcr. 

Submittals on disk or CD must not be access-restricted (locked or readonly) in order to facilitate use by the Departmenl of the electronicalJ~

submitted comments. Microsoft Word 6.0 or above is prefen·ed. 

Macintosh fomlats should not bc used. Each comment should be 

identified by the appliCable NJ.A.C. citation. with the commenter's name 

and affiliation following the comment. 

This rule proposal can be viewed or downloaded from the 

Department"s website at http://'''''''''''.state.nj.us/dcp/rules. 

The agency proposal follows 

(CITE 41 N.J,R. 4156) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009 
PROPOSALS 

Summary 

Since the Department has provided a GO-day comment period on this 

notice of proposal. the notice is excepted fi-om the nllemaking calendar 

requirement pursuant to NJ.A.C. 1:30-3.3(a)5. 

The Depanment is proposing to amend its rules at NJ.A.C. 7;~7-9,

Sulfur in Fuels. specifically NJ.A.C. 7;~7-9.2. to lower. and thus make 

more stringent. the maximum sulfur content standard for fuel oil stored, 

offered for sale. sold. delivered. exchanged in trade for use or used in 

New Jersey. Both the existing and the proposed amended standards are 

bascd on thc gradc ofthc fucl oil: numbers 1.2.4.5 and 6 gradc fucl oils. 

The Department is proposing new maxinll1m sulfur content standards for 

all grades of fuel oil (except No.5, No.6 and heavier grades in Zones 3. 

4 and 6. as discussed below). to take effect July L 2014. The Department 

is also proposing a second phase of more stringent maximum sulfur 

content standards for No. and lighter grade fuel oil. to take effect July 1. 

2016. In Zones 3,4 and 6, the existing standards for No.5, No.6, and 

hcavier grades of fuel oil already meet the standards agreed to b)' the 

members of the Mid-AtlanticlNortheast Visibilitv Union (MANf-VU). a 

regional phuming organization that helps' states in the Mid· 

Atlantic/NOlthcast U.S. develop and coordinate their Regionall1aze State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). Accordingly. the Department does not 

propose new maximum sulfur content standards for those grades in Zones 

3.4and6. 

The Department is also proposing to amend the maximum sulfur 

dioxide (S02) emissions standard for combustion of fuel oil that contains 

sulfur in cxcess of the sulfur content standard. The proposed new 

maximum S02 emissions standards, also effective July 1, 2014 and July 

1. 2016. arc morc stringcnt for all grades of fucl oil in all zoncs. except 

No.5. No.6 and heavier grades in Zones 3. 4 and 6. In accordance with 

N.J.A.C. 7;27-9.1. "Zone I" means Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, and 

Ocean Counties. "Zone 2" means I Iunterdon. Sussex. and Warren 

Counties. "Zone 3" means Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer 

Counties except those municipalities included in Zone 6. "Zone 4" means 

Bergen, Essex, Hudson. Middlesex., Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, 

Somerset. and Union Counties. "Zone 5" means Salem County. "Zone 6" 

means in Burlington County, the municipalities of Bass River Township, 

Shamong Township. Southampton Township. Tabernacle Township. 

Washington Township, Woodland Township, and in Camden County, 

Waterford Township. These zones were created when the rules were first 

promulgated. to take into account Ule population. oil burning sources and 

resulling S02 emission densities of the counties in the State. The existing 

rules allow for the use of higher sulfur fuels in zones where there are 

fewer sources of S02 and where the ambient levels of S02 are lower. 

Although the proposed amended rules will continue to reference zones. 

the differences in sulfur limits among the zones will be much less 

bccausc of thc air quality necd to rcduce cmissions of S02 ovcr largcr 

areas to address long r~nge transport of fine particles and regional haze. 

The Department is proposing these amendments to help the State 

attain and maimain the Federal health-based National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (particles smaller than 2.5 

microns in diamcter (PM2~)). S02 and ozone. and to reduce haze in New 

Jersey and the region. This proposed rulemaking is part of a regional 

effort to reduce regional haze and fine particles through the 

implementation of a low sulfur fuel strategy. New Jersey committed to 

propose this course of action as a member of MANE-VU. The MANE· 

VU membership includes Washington, D.C., Maryland. Delaware. 

Pennsylvania, New Jersey. New York, Connecticut. Rhode Island, 

Massachusetts. Verrnonl. New Hampshire and Maine and two Native 

American tribes (the Pcnobscot Indian Nation and the 5t. Regis Mohawk 

Tribe) 

New Jersey committed to propose these rules as part of its SIP 

proposal to demonstrate attainmenl of the fine particles NAAQS. dated 

June 16. 2008 (fine Particles SIP). Accordingly, the proposed rules 

constitntc a proposcd amcndmcnt to thc Statc's SIP. 

Background 

Fuel oil is a liquid or liquefiable petroleum product. burned for 

electriciry or for the generation of heat or power. that is derived directly 

or indirectly fi-om crude oil. Crude oil is a mixture of hydrocarbons that 

exists in natural nnderground reservoirs and is made into petroleum 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO:\ 

products through distillation at a refmel') plant. Distillation phySically 

separates the lighter and heavier hydrocarbon fractions of the crude oil 

mixture based on differences in their volatilities. The very light fractions 

(the lightest of the distillate fuels) become gasoline. kerosene and jet fuel. 

The proposed rules do not affect these very light fractions. The mediumto-light fractions become the middle distillate family of fuel oils. a 

general classification for refined petroleum productS in the middle range 

of refinery distillation that includes distillate diesel and heating Ii.lel oils. 

The heavier fractions that remain after the lightcr fractions are distilled 

away become residual fuel oils. Fuel oils are further distinguished b) 

gradc numbcrs: Nos. I and 2 are distillatc oils. Nos. 5 and 6 arc rcsidual 

oils. and No.4 can be either distillate oil or a mixture of distillate and 

residual oils. 

The lighter fuel oils are more volatile and less viscous than the 

residual oils. They have negligible nitrogen and ash contents and usually 

contain less than 3.000 parts per million (ppm) or 0.3 percent sulfur b~

wcight before desulfurization. Distillate fuel oils are used mainly in 

domestic and small commcrcial applications. such as rcsidential hcating. 

on-road vehicles (mainly light and heavy duty trucks). non-road 

equipment used in construction, agriculture and industry. locomotives 

and marine vessels, 

The rcsidual fuel oils contain significant quantities of ash. nitrogen and 

sulfur because they are produced from the residue remaining after the 

lighter fractions (gasoline, kerosene and distillate oils) have been 

removed from the crude oil. Residual oils contain up to. on average. 

approximately 25,000 ppm (2.5 percent by weight) sulfur, and are used 

mainly in utility. industrial and large commercial applications, IAP-42. 

Fifth Edition. Section 1.3, fuel Oil Combustion, United States 

Environmcntal Protcction Agency. Scptcmbcr 1998, http://www.cpa.gov/ 

ttniehief/ap<l2/index.htmI) 

New Jerse~ and other states regulate the sulfur content of fuel oil 

consistent with ASTM International's (ASTM) standard D396 for heating 

oil. J\STM D396 includes a maximum sulfur content of 5,000 ppm. 1n the 

1970s. many states adopted their own heating oil suI fur requirements. 

including Connecticut (3,000 ppm), Maine (3.000 ppm in some regions), 

Massachusetts (3.000 ppm). Ncw Hampshirc (4.000 ppm). New Jcrsey' 

(2.000 to 3,000 ppm. region-dependent) and New York (2.000 to 3.000 

ppm, region.dependent). 

The sulfur content in diesel fuel used by on-road vehicles is currently 

regulated by the first phase of an ultra-low sulfur fuel program 

(maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm) implemented by the United ~tates

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPAj in JWle of 2006 (40 CFR 

80.50 and 80.52(a) and (b)). This Fcderal rcgulation rcquires 80 percent 

of on-road diesel to meet a maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm. The 

remaining 20 percent must be less than 500 ppm. In 20 10. the phase-in 

will be complete, and all on-road diesel will havc to meet the 15 ppm 

standard. 

The USEPA also regulates the sulfur content of non-road diesel fuel. 

The USEPA implemented a low sulfur diesel program (maximum sulfur 

content of 500 ppm) in 2007 (40 CFR 80.51 O(b) and (c)) for non-road 

equipment used in construction. agriculture and industry and in 

locomotives and marine vessels. The federal rules require ultra·low 

sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppm) by 2010 for non-road equipmcnt and by 2012 

for locomotivcs and marine vcsscls. 

Residual fuel oil is also used to power oceangoing vessels. which have 

the largest marine diesel engines. Oceangoing vessels include. for 

examplc. container ships. bulk carriers. tankers and cruise ships, and do 

not include the generally smaller harbor craft. such as ferries. fishing 

vessels and tug/tow boats. 

The maximum allowable sulfur-by-weight specification for 

oceangoing vcsscl fucl oil is 45.000 ppm. undcr Anncx IV of thc 

lntemational Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ShipS, 

adopted by the International Maritime Organization lIMO) member states 

on September, 1997. In October 2008. the IMO member states adopted 

new international standards for thc oceangoing vcsscl fuel oil that 

established a maximum allowable sulfur-by-weight specification of 

35.000 ppm. effective January 1,2012. and a maximum allowable sulfurby-weight specification of 5.000 ppm. effective January 1.2020, 

On March ~i, 2009. the U.S. and Canada proposed to the IMO that it 

designate an Emission Control Area compnsed of geographic regions of 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009 (CITE 41 ;';.J.R. 4157) 
EN\'IRONMI-]\TAL I'ROTECTION 

their coastal waters. In the proposcd Emission Control Area. the 

nc~angoing vessel fuel oil would hav~ a maximum allowable sulfur-byweight speci fication of 10.000 ppm. effective January 1. 20) 0, and a 

ma~imum allowable sulfm-by-weight specification of 1.000 ppm. 

~frectlve January 1. 2015. (International Maritime Organization Adopts 

Program to Control Air Emissions from Oceangoing Vessels, EPA420-f08-033. USEI'll.. October 20081 

As discussed below. reducing the sulfur content of fuel oil reduces 

SO, emissions. 

AIr Contammant Emissions 

Sulfur oxide emissions are generated dll!'ing the combustion of fuel oil 

from the oxidation of sulfur contained in the fhcl oil. The amount of 

uncomrolled sulfll!' oxide emissions IS almost entirely dependent on the 

sui fur content of the fuel, and is not significantly affected by burner 

design or grade of fuel being fired. Distillate fuel oils (No.2 and lighter) 

generate less sulfur oxide emissions because they contain less sulfur than 

residual oils (No.5 and 6). The majority of sulfur oxide emissions from 

convcntional combustion S)'stems are in the form of sulfw' dioxide (SOl). 

According to thc USEI'll.. on avcragc morc than 95 pcrccnt ofthc sulfur 

in fuel oil is converted 10 SO,. approximately one to five percent is 

further oxidized to sulfur trioxide (S03). and one to three percent is 

emitted as a direct paniculate. (.11.1'-42, Fifth Edition. Section I J. Fuel 

Oil Combustion. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

September 1998) Hence. reducing the sulfll!' content of fuel also 

signi ficantly reduces direct paniculate emissions. 

502 contributcs to thc formation of finc particlcs in ambicnt air. 502 

interacts witb other gases and particles in tbe air to form sulfate particles. 

Both solid and condensable particulates form directly from fuel 

combustion in oil-fired healing systems. The solid particulates are 

emitted directly from the furnace and are composed of unburned carbon 

particulates and any ash residue in the fuel oil. The condensable 

particulates are vapors. including sulfate formed from SO, and SO, 

emissions that condense into particulates when the exh~ust g~s cools. 

either in the furnace stack or after leaving the furnace venting system and 

mixing with cool ambient air. 

Emissions of SO,. fine particles. nitrogen oxides (NO,) and carbon 

dioxide (C02) contributc to the formation of fmc particles, ownc. 

regional haze, acid deposition. nitrification of water bodies and 

accumulation of greenbous~ gases in the atmosphere. (Low Sulfur 

Heating Oil in the Nonheast States: An Overview of Benefits. Costs. and 

lmolementation Issues. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use 

M~nagement (NESCAUM). December 2005) These pollutants are 

reduced when the sulfur content of fuel oil is lowered. 

Sulfatc is thc dominant constitucnt of haze-forming particlc pollution 

across the MANE-VU region. It alone accOlUllS for anywhere from one-half to 

two-thirds of total fUle particles mass on the 20 percent haziest days at 

locations within the MANE-VU region that the USEPA has designated as 

Class J areas. These are certain national parks and wilderness areas that 

Federal regulations seek to restore to natum!. unpolluted levels. The 

Brigantine Wilderness Area of the Edwin B. Forsytbe National Wildlife 

Refuge in New Jersey is one of the seven Class [ sites in the MANE-VlI 

region. Even in those areas not designated Class I, on the 20 percent haziest 

days sulfate genemlly accowlts for the largest fraction (40 percent or more) of 

the total line panicles mass in the entire MANE-VU region. (Contributions to 

Rcgional Haze in thc Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Unitcd States. MidAtlamiclNortheast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Contribution Assessment. 

August 2006, (NESCAUM's 2006 MANE-VU Regional Haze Contribution 

Assessment). http://\.\i\\~v.nescaum.orgJdocumenlS/contributions-to-regiona1­

haze-i n-the-north ea.~l-and-mid-at lantic-united-states/) 

Because of ltS dommant contribution to the creation of fme particles. 

sulfate is also an obvious target for reduction in efforts to reduce fme 

particlcs cmissions. To rcduce sulfatc rcquires the rcduction of its 

precursor pollutant. SO,. Hence. USEI'A. in its final implementation rule 

for fme panicles at 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(!), required the evaluation of 

control measures for SO, in order to reduce fine panicles emissions f()r 

those areas not in attainment of the annual fine particles National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

!'HOPOSALS 

NatlOnDI Ambient Air QualITY Standards (NAAQS) 

The r'ederal Clean Air Act requires the USEI'll. to set NAAQS (40 

CFR Part 501 for six common air pollutants lalso known as criteria 

pollutants): fme particles, grOlll1d level ozone. carbon monoxide. sulfur 

oxides. nitrogen oxides and lead. These pollutants harm human health 

and the environment and cause property damage. The USEPA cal1s these 

pollutants "criteria" air pol1utants because it regulates tilelll by 

developing human health-based and/or environment-based criteria for 

selling pemlissible levels. Limits based on human health are called 

primary standards. The Clcan Air Act also providcs that USEPA can 

establish a second set of limits intended to prevent environmental Dnd 

property danlage, which are referred to as secondary standards, 

The primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) standards 

for fine pan!c1es are an annual standard of 15 micrograms. per cubic 

meter (~g/m") and a 24-hour (daily) standard of 35 ~g/m' (4(1 CFR 

50. J3). The primary (health-based) standard for SO, includes an annual 

standard of 0.030 parts per million (ppm) and a 24-hour standard of 0.] 40 

ppm (40 CFR 50.4). The secondary (welfare-hased) standard for SO, is 

0.500 ppm over a three-holl!' period (40 CFR 50.5). 

The USEPA is currently considering more stringent NAAQS for finc 

particulates and ozone because of known health effects below the current 

NAAQS. Both fine panicles and ozone formation wil1 be reduced as a 

result of the proposed rules. 

Nonattainment or tile NAAOS 

When thc USEI'll. cstablishcs or rcviscs DNAAQS. it dcsignates cach 

area of the country as either in attainment or In nonattainment with those 

NAAQS. States witb areas designated as "nonattainmen(" for any criteria 

pollutant must develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that show how 

they will bring those areas into attainment of the standard bv their 

designated attainment dates. Once an area meets its allamment date. it can 

be redesignated as "attainment." States must submit maintenance plans to 

the USEI'll. for these redesignated areas to ensure continued attainment in 

the areas. These redesignated areas are referred to as "maintenance 

areas:' 

Annual Fine Particulate NAAQS 

On December [7. 2004. the USEPA finalized attainment! 

nonallainmcnt designations for thc annual fine particles standDrd. which 

became effective on AprilS, 2005 (40 CFR 51.1000-10121. Thirteen o( 

New Jersev's 21 counties were designated as nonaltainment for the 

annual fin~ particles standard. These ~ounties are associated With two 

multi-state fine particles nonattainment areas. Ten northern cOllntles are 

pan of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut (NNJ/NY/CTI 

nonattainment area and three southern eowlties are part of the Southern 

Ncw Jersey/Philadelphia (SNJ/Phila) nonattainment arca. Ncw Jersc) 

counties that are in the NNJINY/CT nOllattaimnent area are Passaic. 

Bergen. Morris, Essex, Hudson, Union, Somerset. Middlesex. Monmouth 

and Mercer Counties. New Jersey counties that arc in the SNJ/Phila 

nonattamment area are Burlington. Camden and Gloucester Counties. 

On June 16.2008. New Jersey submitted to USEPA its fine particles 

SIP. in accordance with the Federal fmal implementation rule lor fine 

panicles at 40 CFR 5 J.I 000 through 51.1012. This SIP dcmonstrDtcs ho\\ 

New Jersey will meet and maintain the 15 ~g/l11; annual fine particles 

standard by 2010. This SIP will also help the State meet other fme 

panicles-related goals Ireduced haze and air toxics) that complement the 

cfforts to attain the annual finc paniclcs NAAQS and further improve air 

quality in an effort to meet the daily fine panicles standard of 35 ~gm;1.

Dadv Fine Particulate NAAOS 

As it does with the annual fine particles standard. the USEPA must 

designate areas that are in nonatlainment of the daily fme particles 

standards. In accordance with 42 U.S.c. §H07(d)( 1)(A) ((Section 

107(d)(I)(A) of the Clean Air Act). for any new NAAQS. each state 

recommends to the USEI'll. areas of the Slale that should be designated as 

in nonattainmcnt. Althoueh finc oarticles conccntration in Ncw Jcrsc\ 

has improved since Dece'ffiber 20'04. the air quality in several areas ~I

New Jersey does not meet the daily fine particles standard. 

In December 18,2007. New Jcrse,' recommended to the USEPA that it 

apply the nonattainment boundari~s designated jor the annual fine 

particles standard to the daily fine particles standard. with the addition 

(CITE 41 !'U,R, 41581 NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009 
PROPOSALS 

that Knowlton Township in Warren COlillty be included in the 

Northampton-Lehigh County (PA) nonattainment area. In response to this 

request. then-Regional Administrator Steinberg of the USEPA Region 2 

advised. in an August 14. 2008 letter. that the USEPA agreed with all of 

the Department's recommendations, except for the Knowlton Township 

request. The Department submitted additional justification for this request 

on September 17. 2008 and October 20, 2008. The USEPA has not 

fmal ized the designation for the 24-hour fine particles nonattainment in 

New Jersey. 

ReelOnal Haze 

Fine particles are the major cause of visibility impairment in the U.S. 

Visibility impairment caused by the collection of air pollutants emitted by 

sources over a broad geographic area is known as regional haze. Some 

particles and gases can either absorb or scatter light, causing an eflect 

known as "light extinction." resulting in haze. Very small or "fine" 

particles within the 2.5 micrometer size designation of fine particles 

(P M25 ) are the most effective at scattering Iight and are of primary 

concern from a regional haze perspective. (Regional Haze and Visibility 

in thc Northcast and Mid-Atlantic Statcs. NESCAUM. January 31, 200 I. 

(200 I NESCAUM Regional Haze Report). http://www.nescaum.ore/ 

to pics/regional-hazelregional-haze-docume nts) 

Monitoring data collected over the last decade at Federally protected 

Class 1 sites in the MANE-VlJ region show that fine particles 

c{)ncemrations. and resulting visibility impairment. are generally highest 

at those sites ncar industrial and highly populated areas of the region. 

Monitoring data indicatc that particle concentrations arc lowcr. and 

visibility conditions are better. at the more northern Class I sites (such as 

Acadia and Moosehorn. both in Maine) where visibility on the 20 percent 

clearest days is close to natural, unpolluted conditions. By contrast. 

20% Worst Day Mass 

[2000-2004J 

Soil 

El<'I~!ltllt

CarDoll 

(SIP for Regional Haze Proposal. September 5. 2008. NJDEP. 

http://www.state.nl.us/dep/bagp/2008%20Regional%201IazeIRegional%2 

OHaze%20S1P%20-'Yo20PROPOSAL.pdD 

To mitigate the visibility impairment that OCCUIO from SO, emissions. 

MANE-VU states have committed to proposc a roordinatcd roursc of aetion 

that includes the adoption and Implementation of a low sulfur fbel strategy 

that focuses on reducing. SO, cmissions from stationary fuel rombustion 

sources. (Statement of the Mid-AtlanticlNortheast Visibility Union (MANEVU\ Concerning a Course of Action Within MANE-VU Tov.arct Assuring 

Rcasonable Progress. JW1e 20. 2007. (MANE-VU 2007 Statement). 

http://WVow.manevu.orgidocumenLasp?fview=F(Irma Io/020Actions# I 

The proposed amendments would implement this strategy in New 

Jersey in accordance with the USEPA"s regional haze regulations. as 

discussed below. 

federal Regional Haze Regulations 

In amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1977, Congress added Section 

169A (42 U.S.c. §7491) setting forth the 1'01 lowing national visibility 

goal: "Congress hereby declares as a national goal the prevention of any 

future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in 

ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTJOj\ 

visibility at the more southern Class I Brigantine site in New Jersey is 

substantially impaired. even on the 20 percent clearest days. On tbe 20 

percent haziest days. visibility is substantially impaired throughout the 

region. (2001 NESCAUM Regional Haze Report) 

Sulfate is a significant factor in creatmg hazy conditions. since it is the 

dominant contributor to fine particles mass that causes these conditions in 

the Eastern U.S. Figure 2a below reflects sulfate as the largest contributor 

to fine particles mass at New Jersey's Class I Brigantine Wilderness Area 

from 2000 to 2004. Furthermore. the sulfate components of total fine 

particles mass have an even larger effect when considering the 

diffcrcntial visibility impacts of diffcrcnt particlc spccies. Sulfate 

typically accounts for over 70 percent of estimated particle-induced light 

extinction at northeastern and mid-Atlantic Class I sites. (NESCAUM's 

2006 MANE-VU Regional Haze Contribution Assessment) Different fine 

particles will scatter light more or less effectively. Sulfate is highly 

hygroscopic (meaning it has a strong aninity for water). a characteristic 

that enhances its light-scattering effIciency. By comparison. the lightscattcring contribution of organic carbon. which is non-hygroscopic. 

becomes smaller. Sui fate' s relative contribution to total light-extinction is 

disproportionately larger than its relative contribution to total particle 

mass. (200 I NESCAUM Regional Ilaze Report) This is evident from a 

comparison of Figures 1a and Ib below. On the haziest 20 percent of 

days. sulfate accounts for approximately one-half to two-thirds of total 

fine particles mass, but is responsible for 70 to 82 percent of estimated 

particle-induced light extinction at northeastem and mid-Atlantic Class 1 

sites. (NESCAUM's 2006 MANE-VU Regional Haze Contribution 

Assessment) 

Figures 1a and 1b: Role of Sulfate in Visibility Impairment at the 

Brigantinc Wildcrncss Arca (2000-2004) 

20% Worst Day Haze 

[2000-:00~] 

Soil CO:1T5e

Elemental ,,1:\,,\
 

Carbon
 

mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution," 

The USEPA addressed the problem of visibility impairment in two 

phascs. Thc 1980 USEPA rcgulations (40 CFR 51.300-51.307) addrcsscd 

what was temled "reasonahly attributable" visibility irnpainnent or 

"plume blight," Reasonably attributable visibility impairment is the result 

of emissions from one or a few sources that are generally located in close 

proximity to a specific Class I area. "Plume blight" describes a discrete or 

coherent plume of pollution moving across the horizon or across a scenic 

view. 

When it amended the Clean Air Act in 1990. Conl!ress added Section 

I 69B (42 U.S.c. §7492) to strengthen and reaffirm tl;e national visibility 

goal. Section l69B( e) calls for the USEPA "to carry out the 

Administrator's regulatory responsibilities under [Section 169A]. 

including criteria for mcasuring "rcasonablc progress' toward the national 

goal." Congress also included in Section 169B authorizatIOn for further 

research and regular assessments of the progress made. In 1993. the 

National Academy of Sciences concluded thal "current scientifiC 

NE\V JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16. 2009 (CITE 41 j\.J.R. 4159) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

knowiedge is adequate and control technologies are availahle for laking 

regulatory action to improve and protect visibility'" 

The second phase of the USEPA's attempts to reducc visibility 

impairment in national parks and wilderncss areas was the adoption of the 

Federal Regional Haze Rule in 1999. The Regional Haze Rule slighll) 

modified 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307, mcluding the addition of 

defmltions in 40 CFR 51.301. and added new -l0 CFR 51J08 and 51.309 

to address regional haze visibilit) impairment on a national level. 

The goal of the Federal Regional Haze Rule is to improve visibility to 

natural background levels by the year 2064. in all federally designated 

Class J arcas (42 U.S.c. §74921. This goal is to bc achicvcd by rcquiring 

all states to periodically conduct an analysis of available reasonable 

measures and Implement these measures. The analysis and measures must 

be included in a SIP. Statcs with Class 1 areas are further required to 

establish Reasonable Progress Goals for Class 1 areas within their 

borders. using the results of the analysis of reasonable measures as a wa) 

to demonstrate movement towards the national goal of thc absence of all 

manmade pollution from national parks and wildcrness arcas by 2064. 

States are reqUIred to reassess the progress toward the 2064 goal in ftveand JO-year incremcnts. with the first progress assessment occurring in 

2013. for the first milestone year 2018 (40 CFR 51.308(/) and (gl). The 

five-year reasscssment of progress is intended to keep the states on target 

to meet each IO-year goal established for the area. 

Stale and Regional Efforts to Address RegIOnal Haze 

In response to the requiremems of the USEPA Regional Haze Rule, 

Ncw Jcrsey proposed its rcgional hazc air quality protcetion plan on June 

16.2008. (SIP for Regional Haze Proposal. September 5. 2008) This first 

New Jersey regional haze air quality protection plan includes a 

reasonable progress goal to improve visibility levels by 2018, in 

accordance with design standards established by the US EPA Regional 

Haze Rule. The Department anticipates that it will achieve the goal 

through a comhination of reasonable control measures for New Jersey. 

and similar controls of sulfate emissions from sources in the other states 

in the region. 

The Department consulted with· the other Regional Planning 

Organizations and the contributing members ofMANE-VU regarding the 

rcasonablencss of the mcasurcs containcd in thc Statc's SIP. To address 

the impact on Federally protected Class 1 areas. MANE-VlI members 

have agreed to pursue a coordinated course of aetion. The MANE-VlI 

agreement is designed to ensure reasonable progress toward preventing 

any future impairment of visibility in Class T areas. and remedying any 

existing impairment of visibility in Class I areas. This includes pursuing 

the adoption and implementation of a low sulfur fuel strategy III thc 

MANE-VU region. (MANE-VU 2007 Statcmcnt) 

To meet its comrmtment to the MANE-VU agrecment. New Jersey 

proposed a low sulfur fuel strategy in its JWle 18. 2008 Regional Haze 

SIP. This strategy is also included in New Jersey's June 16. 2008 finc 

Panicles Attainment Demonstration SIP to attain and maintain the fine 

particles NAAQS. 

The MANE-VU agrcement contains an effective date of 2012 for 

sulfur-in-fuel standards. In the within proposed rules. New Jersey 

proposes an effective date of 20 14. in response to feedback from the fuel 

oil industry on the time reqUIred to lower the sulfur in fuel regionally and 

in consultation with the other MANE-VU stales. Otherwisc. the proposed 

sulfm-in-fucllimits arc consistent with those containcd in thc MANE-VU 

low sulfur fuel oil strategy for the states in the inner zone. which includes 

New Jersey. 

New Jersey's proposed limits are as follows: 500 ppm for NO.2 and 

lighter (distillate oil). 2.500 ppm for No.4 (residual oil). and 3.000 ppm 

and 5.000 ppm for Nos. 5. 6 and heavier (residual oil). depending upon 

the zone. Measured as percemages, these maximum limits are 0.05 

pcrccnt. 0.25 pcrccnt. 0.30 pcrcent and 0.50 pcrccnt. rcspcctivcly. The 

Department also proposes to further reduce the maximum sulfur content 

of No. 2 distillate oil in 2016to 15 ppm (0.0015 percent). 

In	 some counties and municipalities in New Jersev. the existing 

standards alreadv meet the proposed MANE-VU limits for heavy oil 

(Nos. 5. 6 and heavier residual oil I. That is. the maximum sulfur content 

standard for Nos. 5. 6 and heavier fuel oil is already 3.000 ppm for Zones 

4 and 6. and 5.000 porn for Zone 3. Existing NJ.A.C. 7:27-9 establishes 

PROPOSALS 

maximum sulfur content standards and equil'alent output-based 

performance standards for the six areas of New Jersey referred to as 

Zones I through 6. based 011 the level of SO, nonatlainment of the zone at 

the time the ~Ies were promulgated. To e~sure maintenance of the SO: 

standard. the Department is proposing to retain the more stringent 

maximum sulfUr content standard of 3.000 ppm for heavy oil III Zone 4 in 

the northern part of the State (Bergen. Essex. Hudson. Middlesex. 

Monmouth, Morris, Passaic. Somerset, and Union Counties). and ill 7.one 

6. in the southern part of the State (the Townships of Bass River. 

Shamong, Southampton, Tabernacle. Washington and Woodland in 

Burlington County and Watcrford Township in Camdcn County). This is 

consistent with th~ MANE-VU limits for this grade of oiL which range 

from 3.000 to 5.000 ppm. Also, consistent with the proposed new 

maximum allowable sulfur-in-fuel standards. the Depanment proposes 

commcnsurate new maximum allowable S02 emissions standards for 

each grade of fuel oiL 

Since 2004. the Department has participated in stakeholder meetings 

conductcd by Northcast Statcs for Coordinatcd Air Usc Managcmcnt 

(NESCAUM) and MANE-VU to solicit input from industrial and 

environmental advocates on how to effectively implement a regional \0\\ 

and ultra-low sulfur heating oil program. The major stakeholders 

included representatives from the hcating oil industry. including oil-heat 

distributors. wholesalers and refiners. other states. NESCAUM. MANEVU and the Ozone Transport Commission. The Depar1ment also met on a 

number of oecasions with members ofthe New Jersey's regulated fuel oil 

community to generally discuss what would be required for New Jersey 

facilities to comply with the lower sulfur in fuel oil standards. 

The proposed amendments are more fully described below. 

N.J.A.C. 7:27-9.2	 Sulfur content standards 

The proposed amendments at NJ.A.C. 7:27-9.2 include the addiuon of 

Tables IB and 2B. to add new maximum allowable sulfw'-in-fuel and 

maximum allowable S02 emission standards, effectivc July I. 2014. The 

proposed new standards at Table I B are given in parts per million hy 

weight (ppm), rather than percent sulfur hy weight. as the existing 

standards are described. As the maximum standards decrease to IS ppm. 

expressing the standards as a percentage becomes somewhat awkward. 

inasmuch as 0.0015 percent is more difficult to conceptualize thar 15 

ppm. The conversion to parts p~r million by weight does not change the 

standard. Conversion from percent to parts per million requires 

mUltiplication by 10,000. 

Accordingly. and for greater ease in comparing the existing standards 

to those that are proposed to be in effect III 2014 and 2016. the 

Department proposes to rename Table I as Table I A and to convert the 

existing standards to thcir cquivalcnts in parts pcr mill ion. Thus. for 

example, the existing percent sulfur by weight standard for No.2 and 

lighter fuel oil is OJ percent; expresscd as pans per million hy wClght. 

this standard is 3.000 ppm. 

These proposed new standards in Tables IBand 28 are consistent with 

thc MANE-VU emission management strategy for new standards lor 

maximum allowable sulfur in fucl. which would reduce sulfur content in 

the mner zone states (including New Jersey). 

und~r thc MANE-VlJ agreement on the proposed standards. phase 

Olle establishes limits of 0.05 percent sulfur by weight (500 ppm) for 

distillate oil (No. 2 and lighter); 0.25 percent sulfur by weight (2.500 

ppm) lor NO.4 residual oil; and between OJ and 0.5 perccnt sulfur hy 

weight (3.000 to 5.000 ppm) for No. 6 residual oil. under th~ MANE-Vl' 

strategy. these standards are to go into effect no later than 2012. The 

Department proposes additional time. until July I. 2014. to achicve these 

standards to ensure sufficient limc for productIon and distribution of 

lower sulfur fuel oil. 

In addition. the MANE-VU strategy provides for a phase two 

rcduCtion hy 2016 for distillatc oil (No.2 and lightcr) to 15 pplll. Thc 

proposed new standards for maximum aUowable SO, emisslOllC al 

N..I.A.C. 7:27-9.2 Table 2B represent. as do the existing standards. tne 

emissions level for each grade of fuei oil under combustion scenarios 

without add-on SO, air pollution control equipmem. These values are 

generated by applying a USEPA SO, emission factor. based on the fuel 

oil grade. in addition to the fuel oil heating value (British Thermal Units 

rBTU)/gallons). to the sulfur concemrallon In ppm. An example or this 

(CITE 41 I'i.J.R. 4160) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDA Y, NOVEMBER 16, 2009 
PROPOSALS 

calculation for No.2 fuel oil with a sulfur hy weight content of 0.0015 

percent is as follows: 0.0015 percent sulfur by weight x 142 pounds SOl 

/1000 gallons fuel oil x 1000 gallons/137 Mjllion BTUs = 0.00160 

pounds S02/Million BTUs. The emission factor is taken from the USEPA 

AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors. Volume 1. 

EXlemal Combustion Sources. Chapter 1.3, Fuel Oil Comhustion, 

September 1998 

The Department proposes renaming Tahle 2 as Tahle 2A and making 

the existing maximum allowable SOl emissions standards effective 

through June 30. 2014. Thereafter, the limits in proposed Table 2B would 

apply. As a clarification. thc Departmcnt proposcs rcstating ''!bs/106

., as 

"Ibs per million" in the header for the existing table's emissions 

standards. and replacing the reference to "No. 2" with "No.2 & lighter" 

in the left-most column of Table 2A. These standards apply not only to 

NO.2 grade fuel oiL but to lighter grades. as well. This is consistent with 

Table I. which correctly refers to "No. Q & lighter" grades of fuel oil. To 

further simplify all four tables. the Department proposes to replace "Zone 

2 & Zonc 5" and "Zones 4 & Zonc 6" with "Zoncs 2 & 4" and "Zoncs 4 

& 6." respectively, and to use these shorter labels in proposed new Tables 

IB and 2B. 

The Department recognizes that on July 1. 2014 and July 1.2016. 

when the proposed new standards go into effect, facilities may have 

product in their tanks that complies with the previous standard. but not 

with the newly operative standard. In order to avoid a situation whereby 

persons (from refiners down to end-users. such as home heating oil 

consumers) could not sell, distribute. deliver or use fuel that complied 

with the standard in effect when it was stored. but does not comply with 

the operative standard. the Department proposes to amend NJ.A.C. 7:27­

9.2(a) and (b) to include a "scll-through" provision. which allows thc 

storage. sale. distribution. delivery or use of newly-noncompliant fuel 

that is already in tanks in New Jersey as of July 1,2014 and July 1,2016. 

The Department proposes to update the cross references at N.J.A.C. 

7:27-9.2(a) through (c). (d)6 and (f) and to delete cross-references to 

NJ.A.C. 7:27-9.5. which is proposed to be repealed. The Department also 

proposes to replace the reference in N.J.A.C. 7:27-9.2(a) and (b) to "a 

percentagc" with "thc applicable parts pcI' million," and to make a similar 

amendment al N.J.A.C. 7:27-9.2(f). To correct a grammatical error. the 

Department proposes to replace "which" with "thaC at NJ.A.C. 7:27­

'1.2(a) through (c) and (d)6. 

The Department also proposes to correct a cross reference at NJ .A.C. 

7:27-<i.2(d)7 to the table in N.J.A.C. 7:27-18 containing threshold values 

for significant air quality impact levels. This table IS codified at N.J.A.C. 

7:27-18.4. not N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.3. 

7:27-9.5 Incentive for conversion to coal or other solid fuel 

To ease the transition to the then relatively new sulfur-in-fuel content 

standards. in 1982 the Department promulgated N.J.A.C. 7:27-9.5 to 

allow, under certain strictly controlled circumstances, the use of highsulfur oil for no more than two or three years, where the Department has 

issued a permit for conversion to coal or other solid fuel. No entity has 

taken advantage of this provision. As a result of recently adopted 

amendments to rules governing sulfur in solid fuels (40 N.J.R. 43901a), 

41 N.J.R. 1752(a»), NJ.A.C. 7:27-9.5 is now inconsistent with the 

performance standard of 0.150 pounds of SO, per million BTU at 

NJ.A.C. 7:27-10. Sulfur in Solid Fuels. There would be an 

environmental detriment were the Department to allow either such a 

conversion or the use of such non-compliant. high-sulfur fuel oil. 

Accordingly, the Department proposes to repeal N.J.A.C. 7:27-9.5. 

Social Impact 

Thc proposcd amcndmcnts will havc a positivc social impact on thc 

residents of New Jersey because of the reduced health and welfare 

impacts achieved from air pollution reduction. 

The proposed amendments will primarily reduce emissions of S02, 

which is an air contaminant and a prccursor in thc formation of finc 

particles in ambient air and haze. Additionally. the proposed amendments 

will indirectly reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides. which are tine 

particles and ozone precursors, and indircct(v reduce the direct emissions 

of fine panIcles. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO,'\" 

The health effects associated with exposure to fine particles are 

signifIcant, mainly due to the fact that particles of this size can easily 

reach into the deepest regions of the lungs. Significant health effects 

associated with fine particles exposure include: 

Premature mortality: 

Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease: 

Decreased lung function and di fftculty breathing: 

Asthma attacks: and 

Serious cardiovascular problems. such as heart attacks and cardiac 

arrhythmia. 

Thc USEPA cstimatcd that attainmcnt of thc 1997 annual and daily 

fine particles standards nationally would prolong tens of thousands of 

lives each year and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospital admissions. 

doctor visits. absences from work and school and respiratory illnesses in 

children. Individuals particularly sensitive to fine particles exposure 

include older adults. people with heart and lung disease and children. The 

elderly have been shown to be panicularly at risk for premature death 

from thc cffccts of particulatc mattcr. Hcalth studics havc shown that 

there is no clear threshold below which adverse effects are not 

experienced by at least certain segments of the population. Some 

individuals who are particularly sensitive to fine particles exposure may 

even be adversely affected by concentrations of fine particles below the 

revised 2006 annual and daily standards. (72 Fed. Reg. 20586·20587 

(April 25, 2007), Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule) The 

USEPA is currently reconsidering those standards based on 

recommendations of its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

(CASAC). 

According to the most recent federal and State estimates, 765.125 New 

Jersey rcsidents have asthma In 2004. asthma suffcrcrs in Ncw Jerscy 

accounted for 15.679 hospitalizations. which represents approximately one 

out of ever)" 50 hospitalizations. Of these asthma hospitalizations. 5.175, or 

about one-third.. were children. There were 1.838 deaths due to asthma 

between 1989 and 2003 in New Jersey. The risk of death from asthma 

increases considerahly with age, wilh the over-65 population having the 

highest rates. (Asthma in New Jersey Annual Update 2006. New Jersey 

Dcpartmcnt of Hcalth and Scnior Scrviccs. August 2006, 

hnp:l/wwv,'.slate.nj .uslhealthlfhs/asthmaidocunlents/asthma....update2006.pdO 

S02 causes a wide variety of healUl and environmental impacts 

because of the way it reacts with other substances in the air. S02 reaclS 

with other chemicals in the air to form fine sulfate particles. When these 

are breathed. they gather in the lungs and are associated with increased 

respiratory symptoms and disease, difficulty in breathing. and premature 

dcath. Pcak Icvels of SO, in thc air can causc tcmporary breathing 

di mculty for people with asthma who are active outdoors. Longer-teml 

exposures to high levels of S02 gas and particles cause respiratory illness 

and aggravate cxisting heart disease. (Sui fur Dioxide: llealth and 

Environmcntal Impacts of S02/Six Common Pollutants/Air & 

RadiationiU SEPA. http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/s02/hlth I.html) 

Increased ozone concentrations severely afrect the quality of life for 

susceptible populations - children. the elderlv and asthmatics - and 

present health risks for everyone. Exposure to ~zone for several hours at 

relatively low concentrations significantly reduces lung ftulction and 

induces respiratory inllammation in normal. healthy people during 

excrcisc. This dccrcasc in lung function is gcncrally accompanicd by 

symptoms. such as chest pain. coughing. sneezing and pulmonary 

congestion. (The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. as updated August 17, 

2007, hltp:/lwww.epa.gov/oar/oagps/irreenbkl03co.html#Ozone) 

NO,. as a precursor for both fme particles and ozone. will contribute to 

the health impacts associated with both fine particles and ozone. Ozone 

cxposurc can causc scvcral hcalth cffccts. including irritation of lungs. 

This can make the IWlgs more vulnerable to diseases. such as pneumonia 

and bronchitis. increase incidents of astlulla and susceptibility to 

respiratory infections, reduce lung function. reduce an individual's ability 

to cxcrcisc and aggravatc chronic lung discascs. 

The Deparlment anticipates that there will be no social impact from 

thc proposed repeal of N.J.A.C. 7:27-9.5. since there have not been. nor 

will there be, any entities that have or will avail themselves of the options 

offered by these outdated, and no longer appl icable, incentives to convert 

to coal combustion. 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16. 2009 (CITE 41 J\.J.R. 4161) 
ENVIRO"l'MENTAL PROTECTION 

Economic Impact 

The Department anticipates that the overall economic impact of the 

proposed amendments will be a positive one. 

The Departmcnt evaluated thc availability and production cost of 

hcating oil with sulfur-b)'-weight specifications of 500 ppm (low sulfur 

heating oil) in 2014 and 15 ppm (ultra-low sui fur heating oil) in 2016 for 

the northeast lJ .S. that corresponds to the MANE-VlJ Region. The 

Department based this anaiysis on currentl) available refiner)' studies 

conducted for the National Oil Heat Research Alliance (NORA) and 

Amcrican Pctroleum Institutc (API), Encrgy Information Agcncy (EJA) 

data, and a public health benefits study conducted by Northeast States for 

Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). The NORA Report 

concludes that as the demand for low and ultra-low sulfur fuel oil and 

heating oil increases, the sources of supply for low sulfur fuel oil and 

relining capacity will be reconfigured for greater low and ultra-low sulfur 

production capability. The API Report projects that sufficient supplies of 

low sulfur heating oil will be available to meet the demand that will be 

generated trom the implementation of a low sulfur fuel standard in 2010 

for New Jersey. The NESCAUM Report determined overall health earc 

savings from the implementation of botb low and ultra-low sulfur 

programs. (Public Health Beneflls of Reducing Ground-level Ozone and 

Fine Particle Matter in the Northeast U,S., A Benefits Mapping and 

Analysis Program (BenMAP) Study, NESCAUM, January 15,2008) The 

Department also conducted a cost-benefit analysis based on information 

from this report in addition to the NORA and API Reports and EIA data. 

Additionally, the Department considered the study conducted by the 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 

(NYSERDAj and Brookhavcn National Laboratories (Low sulfur Homc 

Heating Oil Demonstration Project SLUnmary Report, Energy Research 

Center, Inc" and Brook.haven National Laboratories, BNL-74956-2005­

JR, June 2005 (NYSERDA Report)). The NY SERDA Report finds 

overall savings to consumers in terms of reduced heating equipment 

service and maintenance costs from usiftglow sulfur healing oil. 

The NORA Repon 

The NORA Repol1 analyzes the availability of and the cost to produce 

low sulfur heating oil in 2012, and ultra-low sulfur hcating oil in 2018, to 

supply the demands of the northeast U.S. market. The report analyzes 

availability of low sulfur heating oil as of 2012 because thaI was the 

targeted implementation date of the low sulfur heating oil program within 

the inner zone of the MANE-VU region (New Jersey. New York, 

Delaware and Pennsylvania, or portions thereof). The targeted 

implementation date for the first phase of the program for the outer zone 

of the MANE-VlJ rcgion was 2014. The cntirc MANE-VU rcgion was 

targeted to require the use of ultra-low sultllr hcating oil by 2018. The 

NORA Report focuses on the supply and demand of the northcast U,S. 

heating oil market. because this area con'esponds to the entire MANE-VU 

region that will be affected by both the low and ultra-low sulfur 

programs. 

The NORA Report indicates that there will be a maior shin to ultralow sulfur distillate by 2012 in the Atlantic Basin region, of which the 

eastern portion of the U.S. is a part. By 2012, approximately 76 percent 

of distillate in the Atlantic Basin region will be low or ultra-low sulfur. 

up from 48 percent in 2006. By 2018, 86 percent of Atlantic Basin 

distillatc oil will bc 50 ppm or Icss. 

Similarly by 2018. 94 percent of the northeast U.S. distillate will be 

ultra-iow sulfur according to the NORA report. Therefore. most suppliers 

will be marketing all or predominantly ultra-low sulfur distillate. This is 

mainly because the on-road and non-road diesel conversions to ultra-low 

sulfur were completed more than five ycars carlier and adequate notice of 

the heating oil market conversion to ultra-low sulfur distillate will be 

pr0vidcd to suppliers. Hcnce, thc NORA Rcport believcs that supplylllg 

the additional ultra-low product will not place a significant strain on the 

northeast U.S. heating oil market. Based on this conclusion, thc available 

supply in 20 J 4 and 2016 will meet the demand of New Jersey. 

The NORA Report points out the possibility that the availability of 

low sulfur fuel may be conStrained at the beginning of 2012. because 

Federal mandates lor non-road mobile sources to use ultra-low sulfur fuel 

oil in the U.S will cause a rapid. short-term shill to ultra-low sulfur fuels. 

In consideration of this possibility. the Department proposes to 

!'ROPOSALS 

implement the low sulfur fuel standard in 2014 instead of in 201l. to 

provide the refineries sufficient time to make modifications to increase 

distillate production to meet this demand. 

According to the NORA Report, producing low sulfur distillate that 

meets the proposed 500 ppm standard will cost refineries 5.4 to 6.8 ccnts 

per gallon more than producing fuel exceeding the maximum 500 ppm 

sulfur standard Ihigh sulfur distillate!. This figure includes both capital 

and operating costs of control equipment. Producing 15 ppm-compliant 

sulfur distillate will cost as much as 8.9 ccnts per gallon more than 

producing high sulfur distillate. The cost to refineries that have eXisting 

dcsulfurization facilitics that could bc rcvampcd for lowcr sui fur contcnt 

operation could be as much as four cents per gallon lower. 

The API Report 

The API Report provides additional support for the tCasibility of the 

low sulfur heating oil supply. It analyzes the availability and cost to 

produce low sulfur heating oil for 2010 in the U.S. The API Report 

utilized a proprietary refmery analysis model that accounted for the 

operations of each domestic refinery that manufactures distillate fuel oil. 

Thc API rcport found that cvcn without any changc to thc allowablc 

sulfur-by-weight specifications in heating oil the 2010 production of low 

sulfur heating oil in the eastern U.S. will reach 250 thousand barrels per 

day' (tbd), as compared to 90 tbd for high sulfur heating oil. so that these 

fuels represent approximately 73 and 27 percent of the total distillate hlel 

oil production in the eastern U.S. for 20 I0, respectively. This closely 

corresponds to the nationwide relative production values for high and low 

sulfur hcating oil in 20 I0, whieh thc API reports as 423 tbd for low sulfur 

heating oil as compared to 155 tbd of high-sulfur heating oil. 

Based on the API Report modeling results for 2010, assuming that 

these results will be similar in 2014, and given the adequate nollce that 

will be provided to refmers, the Department anticipates that there will be 

enough supply to satisfy New Jersey's market for low sulfur heating oil. 

NESCAUM Regort 

NESCAUM used a USEPA Environmental Benefits Modeling and 

Analysis Program (BENMAP) to estimate the economic benefit of 

avoided adverse health care episodes, such as hospital admissions and 

medical treatment that result from S02 emission reductions achieved 

from the implementation of low and ultra-low sulfur standards in 2018, 

within thc northeast U.S. The analvsis showed that the eastern and 

midwest L' ,S, will achieve S02 emission reductions of 180,000 LOns with 

an economic benefit in reduced health care costs or $3.63 billion. which 

corresponds to more than $20,000 of benefit per ton of S02 removed. 

No.2 Oil 

The Department used information from the NORA, API. NESCAUM 

reports and EIA data to determine the costs and benefits of implementing 

the proposed low and ultra-low sulfur standards. As discussed above, the 

API report found that the 2010 production of low stJifur heating oil in the 

eastern U.S. will reach 250 tbd. as compared to 90 tbd for high sulfur 

heating oil, so that these fuels represent approximately 73 and 27 percent 

of the total distillate fuel oil production in the eastern U.S. for 2010. To 

determine the total amount of high-sulfur heating oil consumed in New 

Jersey in 2007, the Department applied the 27 percent hig.h sulfur heating 

oil to total heating oil ratio determined from the API Report to the 

316,134 thousand gallons per year (tgy) of LOtal rcsidcntial distillate oil 

consumed in New Jersey for 2007. (State Energy Data System. Table 

F4a: Distillate Fuel Oil Consumpllon Estimates by Sector. 2007, Energy 

Information Administration, February 13. 2009, http://wv,'W.eia,doe.gov l 

emewslates/sep fuel/htmlipdf/I'uel use df.pdfl This yields 85,356 tgy of 

high sulfur heating oil consumed in New Jersey for 2007, Although the 

data are from 2007, it is reasonable to assume that the\' should close" 

approximatc hcating oil demand in 2014 and also in :'0 J6, which ma;' 

well be lower than this amollnt. This is because heating oil consumption 

in the State has leveled off from a high of approximately 430,000 tgy in 

2000 to approximately 300,000 tgy in 2006 and 2007. (State Energy Data 

System, Table 8: Residential Seetor Energy Consumption Estimates, 

Selected Years, 1960-2006, New Jerse) , hltp:/lwww.eia.doe.goviemew 

states/sep use/res/uscreLnj.htmll Also, energy efficiency improvement 

efforts should reduce fuel oil consumption. 

(CITE 411\.J.R. 4162) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009 
PROPOSALS 

New Jersey would achieve an S02 emission reduction of t,030 tons 

per year (tpy) from the implementation of the low sulfur standard in 

2014. This estimate is based on the application of USEPA's AP-42 SO; 

emission factor of 142 times S 10 the 85.356 tgy of high sulfur heating oil 

projected to be consumed in New Jersey in 2014. This emission factor is 

expressed in units of pounds of S02 per thousand gallons. and the S in the 

equation is the percent sulfur concentration by weight of the distillate fuel 

oil. (AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Volume I, 

External Combustion Sow'ces, Chapter 1.3. Fuel Oil Combustion, 

USEPA, September 1998) Since there are two different S values for New 

Jerscy under the cxisting rulc dcpcnding on thc county (0.3 pcrccnt and 

0.2 percent). the S value of 0.218 percent that th~ Department used for 

the calculation is a weighted average based on estimated county 

population in 2007. Subtracting the S02 emission calculated from the 

0.218 percent S value and the 0.05 percent low sulfur S value yields a 

reduction of S02 emissions of 1.030 tpy. 

Thc cost to convert the projected 85,356 gallons of high sulfur heating 

oil to low sulfur hcating oil is cstimatcd to bc $5.8 million. This is bascd 

on the application of the NORA cost estimate of 6.8 cents per gallon for 

converting high sulfur heating oil to low sulfur-heating-oiL 

In addition to the 1,030 tpy of S02 emission reduction from the 

implementation of the proposed low sulfur rulemaking standard in 2014, 

the Department projects achieving S02 emission reduction of 294 tpy 

from implementation of the ultra-low sulfur standard in 20 J6. The 

Department used the same estimation methodology applied above. but 

with S representing a reduction of average sui fur-by-weight 

concentrations in the projected 316,134 tgy of low sulfur heating oil from 

0.05 percent (500 ppm) to 0.0015 percent (15 ppm). (Final Regulatory 

Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Dicscl Engincs, EPA420­

R-04-007. Table 7.1.6-10 Annual Distillate Fuel Demand and Sulfur 

Content: Final NRLM Rule: USEPA, May 2004 (Table 7,1.6-10), 

http://WW\\'.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004frl420r04007h .pdf) 

The cost 10 convert 316,134 tgy of low sulfur heating oi I to ultra-low 

sulfur heating oil is estimated to be $14.5 million. based on the NORA 

cost estimatc of 4.6 cents per gallon to convert low sulfur heating oil to 

ultra-low sulfur hcating oil. Thc Departmcnt addcd this amount to thc 

$5.8 million estimated cost to implement the low sulfur standard to obtain 

an overall cost estimate of $20J million to implement both the proposed 

low and ultra-low sulfur standards for residential heating oil (No.2 fuel 

oil). This corresponds to a cost of $15,332 per ton of S02 emission 

reductions, based on the total S02 emission reductions of 1.324 tpy 

achieved from the implementation of both the proposed low sulfur and 

ultra-low sulfur standards for rcsidcntial hcating oil. 

No. .JOil 

Currently, only one facility that is usmg No.4 fuel oil in New Jersey, 

Accurate Forming in Hamburg, participates in the Department's Emission 

Statcment Program. Lowering the allowable maximum sulfur content of 

NO.4 fuel oil to 0.25 percent (2,500 ppm) will reduce SO, emissions by 

approximately 1.4 tpy from burning 45 tgy of No. 4 fuel oil at this 

facility. This estimate is based on a reduction in average sulfur content of 

0.7 percent (7.000 ppm) to the allowable sulfur by weight specification of 

0.25 percent (2,500 ppm) for 42 tgy of No.4 fuel oil affected by the 

proposed change in sulfur specifications. The S02 emission factor, 

expressed in units of pounds of S02 per thousand gallons, is 150 X S. 

(USEPA AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Volumc 

l. External Combustion Sourc~s. Chapter 1.3. Fuel Oil Combustion. 

September 1998) 

In order to estimate the incremental cost of this affected fuel. the 

Department considered historical price data fmm the Division of Purchase and 

Property in the New Jersey Department of the Treasur~y. (http://www.nj.gov/ 

cgi-bin/treasurv/purchase/fuel/fuelscarch.pl?fueltvoe=oiI46) Prices for No.6 

n.lcI oil arc availablc for thrcc spccifications of sulfur-by-wcight (0.3 perccnL 

0.5 percenL and 1.0 percent). Because infomlation on more than one 

soecification of NO.4 fuel oil is not available from the Treasury Department, 

the Department uses the historical average price difference on the available 

pnces for No.6 filel oil. 

The historical average price difference from August 30. 2004 to June 

25, 2009 for No.6 fuel oi I with sui fur-by-weight contents between OJ 

and 1.0 pcrcent was 8.86 cents per gallon. Using this estimated price 

ENVIRONMENTAL I' ROTECTIO:,\ 

difference, the total economic impact of the proposed 2014 standard for 

New Jersey consumers on the affected 42 tgy of No.4 fuel oil will ne 

approximately $3,721 per year. This corresponds to a cost estimate or 

$2,658 per ton of S02 removed. 

No 6 Oil 

Lowering the allowable sulfur content or No.6 fuel oil to 0.5 percenl 

(5,000 ppm) would affect at least five New Jersey facilities and would 

rcducc S02 cmissions by approximatcly 219 IOns per ycar. Bascd Oil thc 

Emission Statement data, most of the 9.3 million gallons of No. 6 fuel oil 

is combusted by B.L. England Generatll1g Station in Upper Township. 

Deepwater Generating Station in Pennsville. Ames Rubber in lIamburg.. 

Anchor Glass in Salem, and BASF in Washington. The estimated sulfur 

reduction is based on a reduction in averag.e sulfur content of 0.8 percent 

(8,000 ppm) to the allowable sulfur contenl of 0.5 percent (5,000 ppm) 

for the 9.3 million gallons per year of No. G fuel oil affected by the 

proposed change in sui fur specifications. The S02 emission factor. 

expressed in units of pounds of S02 per thousand gallons. is 157 times S. 

(lJSEPA AP-42 Compilation or Air Pollution Emission Factors, Volume 

L Extcrnal Combustion Sourccs. Chaptcr 1.3. Fucl Oil Combustion, 

September 1998) 

In order to estimate the incremental cost ofthe affected fueL the Department 

considered historical price data from the Division of Purchase and Property in 

the New Jersey Department of the Treasnry (hnp:/lwww.state.nj.uslce:ibinltreasurvlpurchase/fuel/fuelsearch.pl?fueltype=oil46) As discussed above. 

prices for No.6 fuel oil are available for three specilications of sulfur by weight 

(0.3 pcrccnt, 0.5 perccnt. and 1.0 pcrccnt). Thc historical avcragc pricc 

difference from August 30, 2004 to July 27, 2007 in No.6 fuel oil with sulfur· 

by-weight contents between 0.5 and 1.0 percent was 5.05 cems per gallon. 

Using this estimated price difference, the total economic impact of the 

proposed 2014 standard for New Jersey consumers on the affected 9,3 million 

gallons per year of No.6 fuel oil is $469,650 per year. TIus corresponds to 

$2,145 per ton S02 removed as a result of the proposed decrease in sulfur 

content in No.6 oil. 

ESII/llaled Net Belle/It 

The IOtal cost of the proposed decrease in sulfur content from No.2 

fuel oil. No.4 oil. and No.6 oil estimated to be $13,100 per ton of SO, 

removed. This estimate is based on combined costs of $20.8 miJiion. 

divided by the S02 emissions removed of 1,585 tons per year that the 

Department anticipates will resuLt from the proposed rules. The annual 

health·care benefit is estimated to be $32,0 million, which the 

Department calculated based on the NESCAUM health care benefit factor 

of $20,167 per ton of 502 removed for the 1,585 tons of S02 removed. 

The health benefit exceeds the compliance costs. Taking the difference 

between the benefits and costs, the Department estimates thaI the 

proposcd standards for residential hcating oil (No.2 fucl oil) and No.4 

and Ii fuel oils rules wilJ have a net benefit in health care savings of $11.2 

million. 

NYSERDA Report 

NYSERDA and Brookhaven National Laboratories conducted a threeyear demonstration project in whieh 1.000 homes switched from high to 

low sulfur heating oil. According to the NYSERDA Report. consumers 

that switch to low sulfur heating oil save money, because 10\\ sulfur 

distillate fucl oil uscd in hcating is c1cancr-burning and rcsults in a 

substantial reduction in heating equipment mainlenance and service 

requirements, while at the same time reducing 502 emissions. Thc 

NYSERDA Report found that the use of the low sulfur healing oil 

reduced fouling of heating equipment. which meant that cleaning of the 

equipment was needed less frequently. Thc savings ranged from $22.00 

to $40.00 per year, based 011 hourly labor costs of $56.00 to SIOO.OO per 

hour. Thcsc calculations wcrc bascd on thc c1caning intcrval incrcasing 

from 18 months for fuel with sulfur by weight of 0.25 percent (2,500 

ppm) to 58 months for fuel with sulfur by weight of 0.05 percent. TIllS 

savll1gs would be equivalent to one to two percent of the roughly $2,000 

cost of fuel oil per year per home. 

The NY SERDA Report also estimated that fouling a furnace SYSlem 

with approximately 2,500 ppm fuel oil reduces efficiency by 

approximately two percent per year, and more than 50 percent of deposits 

are created by the sulfur in the fuel. Reducll1g sulfur contem in distillate 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009 (CITE 411\,J.R. 4163.1 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO]'\ PROPOSALS 

fuel oil to 0.05 percent (500 ppml wlll increase efficiency by 

approximately one percent over the healing season, for a OJ percent 

average annual efficiency increase. In the case of a $2.000 per year 

heating bill. the efficiency savings would be approximately $20.00. 

Additi~nally. the use of 1(",: sulfur l;eating oil will extend furnace life and 

could reduce th~ cost of new oil furnaces. because of the ability to use 

lower-cost materials in their construction and more compact hCJ\ 

exchangers. 

Economic Impact of Proposed Sulfur Standards 

The economic beneflt of reducing the negative impacts of high sulfur 

fuel on the environment, human health and damage to equipment 

outweighs the costs to implement the proposed mlemaking. The 

Department anticipates the increascd cost to consumers as a result of the 

proposed low and ultra-Io\\' sulfur standards for heating oil (No.2 oil) is 

twO to four percent of recent home heating oil prices. The proposed 

standard for No 4 fuel oil will affect few facilities in New Jersey and cost 

a relatively low amount. The predominant use of the No. (, fuel oil in 

New Jersey is by several electric generating units rEGUs). According to 

EIA data. the amount of No. (, oil uscd by thcsc EGUs is low in 

comparison to the cntire fucl mix of all EGUs l1ess than one pereent. 

nationally). so the increase in the cost of electricity for the consumer will 

also be proportionately low. With an estimated net health benefit of $1\.2 

million. the cost of the proposed mles is more than offset by the benefits 

rcceived. 

Economic Impact of Proposed Repeal 

Thc Department antiCipates that there will be no economic impact 

from thc proposcd rcpcal ofN.J.A.C. 7:27-9.5. sincc thcrc havc not bcen. 

nor will there he. any entities that have or will avail themselves of the 

options offered by these outdated. and no longcr applicable. incentives to 

convert to coal combustion. 

Environmental Impact 

The proposed amendments will have a positive impact on the 

environment because emissions of SO,. fme particles. nitrogen oxides and 

carbon dioxide are reduced when the sulfur content of heating oil is 

lowcrcd. Thcsc pollutants contributc to thc fomlation of finc particles. 

ozone and regional haze. acid deposition. nitrifIcation of water bodies and 

accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ("Low Sulfur Heating 

Oil in the Northeast States: An Overview of Benefits. (osts and 

Implementation Issues," NESCAUM. December 2005. www.nescaum.org! 

documents/report060 10 I heatingoil.pdll 

As discussed in the Economic Impact above. the Department estimates 

that lowering thc allowable sulfur-by-weight specification in high sulfur 

heating oil (No. 21 to 0.05 percent (500 ppm) will reduce SO, emissions 

by over 1.000 tons per year in New Jersey. A further reduction in the 

allowable sulfur-by-weight standard in low sulfur heating oil (No.2) 

frolll 0.05 percent (500 ppm) to 0.0015 percent (15 ppm) will additionally 

reduce SO, emiSSIOns by about 300 tpy in New Jersey. Both of these 

reductions are discussed in the Economic Impact above. Thc Department 

estimates that lowering thc allowable sulfur-by-weight standard of No.4 

fuel oil to 0.250 percent (2.500 ppm) in all zones. as is proposed. would 

affect at lenst one New Jersev facilitv and would reducc SO, emissions 

from this facility by ovcr o~e tpy.· Similarly. lowering the allowable 

sulfur-by-wcight Standard of NO.6 fuc! oil to 0.5 pcrccnt (5.000 ppm) 

would affect at lcast five New Jcrsey facilities and would reduce sulfur 

dioxide emissions by over 200 tpy. 

A summary of the estimated emission reductions obtained from 

lowering the sulfur-by-weight concentrations in the typical grades of fuel 

oils used in heating is included in Tables Band (below. 

Table B
 

Emission R.eductlons from Proposed Sulfur in Fuel Standards
 

Effective Jul)' I. 2014
 

Proposed SO, 

Grades of Oil 

Typical Existing 

Emission 

Standards 

Sulfu r-in-Fuel Sulfur-in-Fuel 

Reductions 

2014 

Standards in 

in 2014 in 

Ions per 

year (tpYI 

No.2 & OJ percent to 0.05 percelll 1.030 

lighter 0.2 percenl (500 ppml 

(3.000 to 2.000 

ppm)
 

1'<0.4
 0.7 percent 0.25 percent 14

(7.000 ppm) (2.500 ppml
 

No.5, No.6 &
 219 

Heavier 

2.0 pcrccnt to 0.5 perccnt 

OJ percent (5.000 ppm) 

(20.000 to 

3.000 ppm) I
 

I Total emission reductions in 2014 from proposed 1.250 tpy 

ne" sulfur-m-fuel standards 

Table C 

EmISSion Reductions from Proposed Sulfur 111 Fuel Standards
 

Effective July I, 2016
 

Typieal Proposed Proposed Sulfur Dioxide 

Grades of Sulfur-in-Fuel Sulfur-in-Fuel Emission 

Oil Standards in Standa rds in Reductions in 

2014 2016 2016 in tons per 

vear (tpv) 

No.2 & 

liehter 

0.05 percent 

(500 ppm) 

0.00 15 percent 

(IS ppm) I 294 

294 

from proposed new sulfur-in-fuel standards 

Total emission reductions from proposed new 

1 otal additional emission reductions in 2016 

1.544 

sulfur-in-fuel standards in 2014 and 2016 

Lowering the sulfur content of heating oil reduces particles 

emissions. Direct particle emissions from residential burners are reduced 

80 percent from implementing a low sulfur heating oi I standard, which 

reduces the level of sulfur in the heating oil by a similar amount. ("Low 

Sulfur Heming Oil in the Northeast States: An Overview of Benefits. 

Costs and Implcmcntation Issllcs." NESCAUM. Deccmber 2005. 

http://w..,,,..,,,. neseaum.org/documents/reportOIiO I0 IheatingoiL pdf/) This 

is because reducing SO, emissions by reducing sulfur in heating oil will 

also cause a similar reduction in fine particles emissions. as discussed in 

the Summary above. High sulfur heating oil contains significant 

quantities of ash: whereas. low sulfur heming oil has negligible ash 

content. (USEPA AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors. 

Volume 1. External Combustion Sources. Chnpter 1.3, Fuel Oil 

Combustion. Septemher 1998) A lower ash contcnt in the low sulfur 

heating oil results in lower particle emissions when the healing oil is 

combusted. 

Ozonc damagcs thc Icavcs of trecs and other plants. dcgrading thc 

aesthetie value of cities. national parks and recreation areas. Ozone can 

also damage certain man-made materials. such as textile fibers. dyes and 

paints. (USEPA Fact sheet on the New 8-Hour Ozone and Fine 

Particulate Matter (2.5 microns) Health Standards, July 1997) Lowering 

the sulfur content of fuel oil reduces the overall level of NO, emissions. 

which are comributors to ozone and fme particles. This is because thc 

proccsscs that rcmovc fucl-bornc sulfur in thc refmcry also rcmove othcr 

impurities. including small amounts of nitrogen compounds in the fuel 

oil. This means that there are fewer "fuel-bound" nitrogen compounds in 

low sulfur fuel. Lower levels of nitrogen in low sulfur fuel mJy reduce 

nitrogen oxide, emission levels by five to 10 percent. (Low Sulfur 

Heating Oil: Evaluating the Impacls on Consumers. Consumer Energy 

Council of America. September 2(03) Moreover. NO, emission 

reductions will result in reductions in ozone and fine panicles emissions 

(CITE, 41 l'\.J.R. 4164) NEW JERSEY REGISTER. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16.2009 
PROPOSALS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTJOJli 

because NO, is a precursor pollutant for both ozone and fine particles 

formation. 

Fine particles harm vegetation and ecosystems. contribute to the 

fonnation of acid rain. cause aesthetic damage to manmadc structures and 

damage sensitive forests and fann crops. (USEPA. Health and 

Environment, Particulate MaUer, hltp:llwww.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/ 

health.html) The primary fine particles that contribme to acid rain are the 

sulfates and nitrates formed from S02 and NO" which also react in the 

atmosphere to form acidic compounds. Consequently. reducing sulfur 

concenU'ation in hcating oil reduces acid rain by reducing the sulfate formed 

from SO,. 

Another immediate effect of reducing the sulfur content in fuel is a 

noticeable reduction in the levels of sulfate buildup on heating 

equipment. This reduces heating equipment fouling. which results in an 

incrcase in average fumace efficiency. (Low Sulfur Heating Oil: 

Evaluating thc Impacts on Consumers. Consumer Energy Council of 

America. September 2003) This increase in efficiency reduces the 

amonl1t of fucl ncccssary to opcratc thc fnrnacc. which rcduccs cmissions 

of carbon dioxidc (CO,). a greenhouse gas that contributes to global 

warming. Global climate change includes effects 011 precipitation and sea 

level and temperature rises, all of which could have significant adverse 

effects on many ecological systems, as well as on human health and the 

econom). New Jersey. a coastal state. is particularly vulnerable to sea 

level rise. 

The proposed amendments wi II have a positive environmental impact 

in New Jersey by reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide. fine particles, 

nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide. a11 of which have negative impacts 

on the environment as discussed above. 

Thc Dcpartmcnt anticipatcs that thcrc will bc no cnvironmcntal impact 

from the proposed repeal ofNJ.A.C. 7:27-9.5. since there have not been. 

nor will there be. any emities that have or will avail themselves of the 

options offered by these outdated. and no longer applicable. incentives to 

convert to coal combustion. 

Federal Standards Statement 

Executive Order No. 27(1994) and NJ.S.A. 52:14B-I et seq. (P.L. 

1995, c. 65) require State agencies that adopt, readopt or amend State 

rcgulations that cxcccd any Fcdcral standards or rcquircmcnts to includc 

in the n1lemaking document a Federal standards analysis. No Federal law 

establishes standards or requirements regarding the contents of sulfur in 

the fuel oil regulated by NJ.A.C. 7:27-9. Although the Department's 

sui fur content standards for fuel oil are Federally enforceable as part of 

New Jersey's State Implementation Plan. the proposed amendments to 

NJ.A.C. 7:27-9 and proposed rcpeal of NJ.A.C. 7:27-9.5 are not 

promulgatcd undcr thc authority of, or in order to implcmcnt. comply 

with or participate in any program established under Federal law or under 

a State statute that incorporates or refers to Federal law, Federal standards 

or Federal requirements. Moreover, there is no comparable Federal 

standard exceeded by this mlemaking and no Federal regulatory scheme 

that might be perceived to be duplicated or overlapped by this 

rulemaking. Accordingly, Executive Order No. 27(1994) and P.L. 1995. 

c. 65 do not require a Fcderal standards analysis. 

Jobs Impact 

The Department anticipates that the proposed amendments may have 

some impact on employment in the State. However. the net impact should 

be neutral. Refineries. fuel storage facilities. fuel transporters and fuel 

distributors will likely modify their operations as necessary without the 

need to shut down operalions and/or reduce lheir workforce. 

The Hess refinery in Port Reading may be significantly impacted by 

the proposed amendments. This facility currently supplies higher sulfur 

distillate oil (sulfur by weight of 0.20 percent (2.000 ppm) or less) for 

residential heating in New Jersey. Hess will have to find other markets 

for its high sulfur distillate oil before July 1,2014. the effective date of 

the proposed sulfur specifIcation of 500 ppm. or install additional 

desulfurization equipment to produce 500 and 15 ppm fuel oil by the 

2014 and 2016 deadlines. respectively. Other refineries that supply 

heating oil to New Jersey and other MANE-VU states may also have to 

install additional desulfurization equipment. Instailat'lon of additional 

desulfurization equipmenl at New Jersey refmeries would require the 

employment of construction workers. 

Lower sulfur fuel oil may result in less required maintenance on oil 

furnaces and boilers. This may reduce the need for furnace maiutenance 

technicians. Lower sulfur oil also enables the production of lower COSl 

and more efficient furnaces. which may encourage the replacemeot of 

older. less efficient furnaces. thereby increasing (he need for furnace 

installers. 

The potential changes for the oil heat industry are not expected to ha ve 

an impact on overall employment. Without cleaner fueL the oil hcat 

industry may have difficulty competing with the natural gas heat industry. 

To the extent that the proposed amendments encourage the use of oil 

heat, thcy will contributc to thc compctitivcncss and cmploymcnt in thc 

oil heat industry. 

There will be no impact on jobs from the proposed repeal of l\,J.A.c. 

7:27-9.5. since there have not been. nor will there be. any emities that 

have or will avail themselves of the options offered by these outdated, 

atld no longer applicable. incentives to COilvert to coal combustion. 

Agricultural Industry Impacl 

The Department anticipates that the proposed amendments will have a 

positivc impact on thc Statc' s agriculturc industry. Sui fur dioxidc 

contributes to acid rain and related crop and vegetation damage. A 

reduction of SO, will result in less crop damage. A reduction of SO, will 

also result in a reduction ill emissions of precursors of sulfate paniculate 

matter. which travel and deposit in soil and in water. According to the 

USEPA. these deposits can make lakes and streams acidic. change the 

nutrient balance in coastal waters and large river basins. deplete the 

nutricnts in soil. damagc sensitivc forests and farm crops, and ncgativcly 

affect the diversity of ecosystems. C'Particnlate Malter - Health and 

Environment," United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

http://www.epa.gov/parti cles/health:htmI) 

The proposed amendments will also reduce particulate matter 

accumulation on agricultural growth. This reduclion in accumulation will 

have a positive impact by reducing interference with photosynthesis. 

There will be no agricultural industry impact from the proposed repeal 

of NJ.A.C. 7:27-9.5, since there have not been, nor will there be, any 

entities that have or will avail themselves of the options offered by these 

outdated, and no longer applicable, incentives to convert to coal 

combustion. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the New Jersey Regulatory Flexibility Act, NJ.S.A. 

52: 14B-16 et seq.. the Department has evaluated the reporting. 

recordkeeping and other compliance requirements that the proposed 

rulemaking would impose upon small businesses. The Regulatory 

Flexibility Act delines the term "small business" as "any business which 

is a resident in this State, independently owned and operated and not 

dominant in its ficld. and wnich cmploys fcwcr than 100 full-limc 

employees." Based upon this definition. some small businesses. primarily 

fuel oil distributors, would be subject to thc proposed amendments. 

Although small busiuesses would be subject to thc compliance 

requirements of the proposed amendments. the Depanment has not 

proposed any new recordkeeping or reporting requirements. nor would 

any small business be reqUIred to retain a consultant or other professional 

in ordcr to comply with thc proposcd amcndmcnts. 

The cost of prodncing lower sulfur fuel oil will be borne by refineries, 

not small businesses. To meet the requirement of the proposed 

amendments. distributors would continue their current practice of 

ensuring that the fuel oil they are delivering meets the sulfur limits. 

without need for additional professionals. The Department has proposed 

at NJ.A.C. 7::!7-9.2(b) to allow regulated entilies to continue to use fuel 

oil that met the existing limits and is already in storage at the time the 

proposed new limit becomes operative. The reason for this provision is to 

allow regulated entities to use up their existing supply of fuel oil before 

receiving a new delivery of fuel oil that meets the new limits. wilhout 

requiring them to remove and dispose of the old oil. This will mitigate the 

impact of the proposed amendments Oil small businesses. as well as large 

businesses. 

New Jersey is under a Federal mandate. pursuant to the authorilY of 

the C lean Air Act, to meet the health-based NAAQS and improve 

visibility in Class I areas. which requires reducmg. air pollutant emissions. 

failurc to achieve these reductions subJects New Jerscy to economic 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16,2009 (CITE 411\.J.R. 4165) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROPOSALS 

sanctions. which would adversely affect all businesses in the State. 

including small businesses. The Deparrment has determined that to 

exempt small businesses from any requirements or to reduce any 

requirements would compromise the goals of the rules and the emission 

reductions needed to reach the attainment of the ol-one and particulate 

matter standards. 

The proposed repeal of t\.J.A.C. 7:27-9.5 is not expected to impact 

any small businesses. since it is not expected to have an impact on any 

business in the Statc. 

Smart Growth Impact 

Exccutive Order No. 4 (20021 requircs State agencies that adopt. 

amend or repeal State regulations to include in the rulemaking document 

a Smart Growtb Impacl statement that describes the impact of tbe 

proposed amendments on the achievement of smart growth and 

implcmentation of thc State Development and Redcvclopment Plan (State 

Plan). 

The proposed rulemaking does not relate to the State's official land 

use and developmcnt policies in a way that would cither encourage or 

discouragc any dcvclopmcnt or rcdcvclopmcnt in this Statc contrary to 

the guiding principles of tbe State Plan. As a result. the Dcpartment does 

not expect this rule making to have an impact on the State's achievement 

of smarr growtb. or implementation of the Statc Plan. 

Since the proposed amendments implement reductions of SO, 

emissions from the combustion of fuel oil. thereby helping to protect air 

quality. the proposed amendments support the State Plan's goal of 

protccting tbc cnvironmcnt and prcvcnting air pollution by implemcnting 

a strategy of reducing air pollution at the source. 

Hou~ing AITordability Impact 

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:1413-4. as amended effective July 17,2008. by 

P.L. 2008. c. 46. the Department has evaluated the proposed rulemaking 

to determine the Illlpact. if any. on the affordability of bousing. Lowering 

sulfur in fuel oil is expected to cnable the construction of lower cost and 

more efficient heaters, thereby. reducing both the installation and 

operating cost of oil heaters. However. the Department has detcrmined 

that tbe proposed amendments and repeal will evoke no change in the 

overall average cost associated with housing in the State. 

Smart Growth Development Impact 

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52: 1413-4. as amended effective Jul)' 17.2008, by 

P.L. 2008. c. 46. the Department has evaluated the proposed mlemaking 

to determine its impact. if any. on smart growth development. The 

Department has determined that the proposed rulemaking will not impact 

housing production in Planning Arcas 1 or 2. or within designated 

centers. under the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. as the 

proposed amcndments and repeal pertain to lowering: sulfur in fuel oil. 

Full text orthe proposal follows (additions indicated in boldface thus: 

dcletions indicated in brackcts [thus]l: 

SUBCHAPTER 9. SULFUR IN FUELS 

7:27-9.2 Sulfur content standards 

(a) No person shall Store. offer for sale. sell. delivcr or exchange in 

trade for use in New Jerscy fuel [which] that contains sulfur in excess of 

[a pcrcentage] the applicable parts per million by weight set fonh in 

Tables III IA and IB of this section. except as provided in (c). (d) and 

lei beiowl. and N.J.A.C. 7:27-9,5J. Fuel stored in New Jerse)' that met 

the applicable maximum sulfur content standar'd of Tables IA or I B 

of this section at the time the fuel was stored in ]l;ew Jersey rna)' be 

stored, offered for sale, sold. delivered or exchanged in trade for usc 

in New Jerse~' after the effective date of the applicable standard in 

Table IB, 

(b) No person sball use fuel [which] that contains sulfur in excess of 

Ia percemagcJ the applicable parts per million by weight set forth in 

Tables [1 J Ill. and I B of tbis section. except as provided in (c), (d)[,] and 

IC) below[. and NJ.A.C. 7:27-9.51. Fuel stored in New Jersey that mel 

the applicable maximum sulfur content standard of Tables Ill. or IB 

of this section at the time it was stored in New Jersey may be used in 

New Jersey after the operative date of the applicable standard in IB, 

TABLE [I] IA 

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SULFUR 11\ FUEL EFFECTI\'E
 

THROllGH ./lINE 30. 2014
 

[Percent Sulfurj Parts per Million by 

Weight (ppml Classification
 

b)' SSli
 I Zones 4 

Viscosity at 

Zones! 

& 8,;

(OOOF Zone 3 IZonel6
 

Less tban or
 

Zone 1 [Zone! 5 

[0.2%) [0.2%]
 

equal to 45.
 

[OJ%J I [OJ'Yo] 

2,000 2.000
 

including gases
 

3.000 3.000 

I I ,

Greatcr than 45 [2.0%J [0 7~oJ [O.3%J [OJ'"I 

20,000 7.000 3.000 3.000
 

145
 

but less than I I 

Equal to or [0.5%] [OJ%]
 

greater than
 

[HI%J [1.0%] 

10.000 5.000 3.000
 

145
 

20.000 

Typical
 

Grades of
 

Fuel Oil
 

No 2 & I hghter 

No.4 

INo 5. NO.6 

I &. heaVier 

TABLE IB
 

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SULFllR IN Fl'EL EFFECTIVE
 

JULY 1.2014 AND JULY 1.2016
 

Parts per Million b\' Weight (ppm) 

Typical 

Classification 

by SSll
 

Grades of
 Viscosity at Zone Zoncs Zones I Fuel Oil 100°F I I 2&5 Zone 3 4&6

500 500 500
 

lighter
 

No.2& Less than or 500 

equal to 45,
 

IeITective
 including
 

.Iuly l.
 gases
 

2014
 

through
 

June 30,
 

2016)
 

No.2& Less than or 15.0 15.0
 

lighter
 

15.0 15.0 

equal to 45.
 

(eITective
 including
 

.Iuly I. I gases
 

20H,)
 

)',0.4 2.500 

I (eITective 

Greater than 2.500 2.500 2.500 

45 but less
 

.Iul)' I,
 than 145
 

2014)
 I 

i

No. 5. I'lo. Equal to or 5.000 5.000 5.000 I 3.000
 

6&
 I
 

heavier
 

greater than 

145 i (eITective I ! July I. I I 2014) 

(c) The provisions of (a) and (b) above shali not apply to fuels whose 

combustion carries sulfur dioxide emissions from any stacK or chimney 

into the outdoor atmosphere [wbich] that are demonstrated to the 

Department as not exceeding. at any time. those quantities of sulfur 

dioxide expressed in pounds per 1.000.000 Britisb Tbermal Units (BTU! 

gross heat input. set forth in Tables [2] 2A and 2B of this section 

(CITE 41 I\.J.R. 41(,6) NEW JERSEY REGISTER. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16,2009 
PROPOSALS 

TABLE [2] 2A 

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SULFUR DIOXiDE EMISSIONS 

EFFECTIVE THROUGH JU:\'E 30, 2014 

SO, Emissions (IlbsJIO·' Ibs Jler million 

BTU) 

TYJlieal 

Grades 

of Fuel 

Oil 

Classification 

b~' SSLI 

Viscosity at 

100°F Zone 1 

Zones 

2& 

IZonel 

5 Zone 3 

Zones 4 

& 

IZonel 

6 

NO.2 & 

lighter 

Less than or 

equal to 45. 

ineludinl! l!ascs 

0.32 0.32 0.21 0.2 \ 

I 

No.4 Greater than 45 

but less than 

145 

2.10 0.74 0.32 0.32 

No.5, 

No. (, & 

Ileavier 

Equal to or 

greater than 145 

2.10 1.05 0.53 0.32 

TABLE2B 

1\1AXIMUM ALLOWABLE SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS 

EFFECTIVE JULY 1.2014 AND JULY 1,2016 

I, TYJlical 

Grades of 

Fuel Oil 

C1assifiea tioll 

hySSU 

Viscosity at 

100°F 

SO, Emissions (Ibs~er million BTlI) 

Zone Zones Zones 

1 2&5 Zone3 4&6 

:"io.2 & Less thall or 0.0530 0.0530 0.0530 0.0530 

Iil?;htcr 

(cffectivc 

July 1, 

2014 

equal to 45, 

including 

gases 

throul?;h 

June 30, 

2016\ I I 

No.2& Less than or 0.00160 0.00160 0.00160 0.00160 

Iil?;htcr 

(effective 

July 1, 

2016) 

equal to 45, 

including 

gases 

:"io.4 Greater than 0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260 

(effective 

July'L 

2014) 

45 bul less 

than 145 

l'io.5,No. 

6& 

Heavier 

Equal to or 

greater than 

145 

0.530 0.530 0.530 0.320 

(effective 

July I, 

2014\ I 

(d) The provisions o( (a) and (b) above shall nOl apply lo (uels 

included in an alternative emission control plan based on a mathematical 

combination approved by the Depanment. Application for such approval 

shall be made to the Department III writing and must include: 

I. eeni ficalion that all source operatiol15 to be included in the 

mathematical combination are under the control of. or operated by. one 

person; [and] 

2. Certification that the total sulfur dioxide emissions from lhe 

mathematical combination during eacll 24-hour period will not exceed the 

quantity of sul(ur dioxide expressed in pounds per mill ion BTU gross 

heal input set forth in Tables [2J 2A and 2B of'this section: [and] 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT!O:" 

3. Certification that the total sulfur dioxide emissions from the 

mathematical combination during each 24-hour period will not exceed the 

maximum total weight of sulfur dioxide that all the sources in the 

mathematical combination were allowed to emit at the time of applying: 

land] 

4. Identification of each fuel burning unit and stack to be included in 

the mathematical combination: landJ 

5. Identification of the grades of fuel to be burned in each unit, the 

maximum sulfur content of each fuel to be burned in each unit. the 

maximum gross heat input rate for each unit, the higher heating value of 

each fuel. and thc annual fuel usc and operating hours per year for cach 

\mit: land] 

6. An application for a permit for any fuel burning unit [which] that 

must be altered or for anv fuel burning unit in which fuel is to be burned 

having a sulfur content 'in excess of the applicable limits specified in 

Tables llJ lA and IE of this seclion. The pern1it may he a 

preconstruction pennit and certificate under N.J.A.C. 7:27-8. an operating 

pennit under N.J.A.C. 7:27-22[,1 or a facility-widc permit as defincd at 

N.JAC. 7:IK-1.5: [and] 

7. A demonstration by air quality simulation modelling acceptable to 

the Department, including aerodynamic down wash modelling, unless 

waived in accordance with the provisions of N.J.A.C. 7:27-9.4. that 

increases in air contaminants resulting from use o( the alternative 

emission control plan will not cause an~ ambient air quality standard to 

be exceeded. or cause any allowable prevention of significant 

deterioration ambient air increment as established by the united States 

En vironmental Protection Agency to be exceeded: and in areas where an 

ambient air quality standard is already exceeded, wi II not cause all 

incrcasc in ambient air conccntrations greater than the threshold increases 

set forth in Table I ofN.J.A.C. 7:27-118.3]18.4; landJ 

8-9. (No change.) 

(e) (No change.) 

(f) If the identi fied grade of fuel oi I does not agree with the 

classification by viscosity set forth in Tables llJ IA and IE and Tables 

[2] 2A and 2B, then the allowable [percent] parts per million sulfur by 

weight shall bc determined by the viscosity classification. 

[7:27-9.5 Incentive for conversion to coal or other solid fuel 

(a) The Department may authorize a person to store, offer for sak. sell. 

deliver, exchange in trade or use fuel oils having a sul(ur conlent in 

excess of the maximum allowable amounts set forth in Table 1 of 

N.J.A.C. 7:27-9.2 provided that: 

1. The fuel burning unit in which the high-sulfur oil is used, or a unit 

of comparable capacity at the same facility. will burn coal or other solid 

fuel in accordance with a schedule approved by the Department: and 

2. The high-sulfur oil will be burned for no longer than a period of two 

years if an e"xisting fuel burning unit is converted from burning oil or gas. 

or three years if the conversion is accomplished by the installation o( a 

new fuel burning unit; and 

3. The appliZant demonstrates by air qltality simulation modelling or 

other methods acceptable to the Department that increases in the 

emissions of air contaminants resulting from the use of the high-sulfur oil 

will not cause any ambient air quality standard to be excccdcd and in 

areas where an anlbient air quality standard is already exceeded. will not 

cause an increase in ambient air concentrations greater than the threshOld 

increases set forth in Table 1 ofN.J.A.C. 7:27-18.3; and 

4. The sulfur dioxide emissions from the burning of coal or other solid 

fuel will not exceed 0.3 pounds o( sulfur dioxide per million BTU gross 

heat input: and 

5. The applicant obtains a pennit for the conversion to coal or other 

solid fuel. The pcnnit may be a preconstnlction permit and certificate 

under N.J.A.C. 7:27-8. an operating permit under N.J.A.C. 7:27-22. or a 

facilitv-wide penn it as defined at N.J.A.C. 7: 1K-I.5: and 

6. The applicant agrccs that if thc conversion docs not takc placc 

pursuant to (a) I above. he will pay to the Depanment a sum of money no 

less than the difference between the cost of the high-sulfur oil used 

pursuant to the provisions of this section and the cost of the same grade 

oil which would otherwise be required under the provisions of NJ.A.C. 

7:27-9.2. Such payment shall be in addition to. and not in lieu of. an) 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16,2009 (CITE 41 "'..l.R. 4167) 
EI\'VIHONMENTAL PROTECTIOI\' 

penalty which may be required pursuant to the Ncw Jersev Air Pollution 

Comrol Act. N..I.S.A. 26:2C-] et scq.: and . 

7. The applical1l will furnish to the Department a written monthlv 

report stating the quantity of high-sulfur oil uscd. the COS! of such oil. and 

the COS! of an equivalent quanlIt, of the same grade oil which conforms 

to the provisions of NJ.A.C. 7:27-9.2; and 

8. The applicant attests to his commitment to honor and comply with 

all of the provisions of this scction and any other provisions the 

Department deems appropriate. by entering into a Consent Order. which 

shall so state. With the Department: and 

9. Such Conscnl Ordcr shall be subjcct to modification or rcvocation 

by the Department if the DepDrtment determines that the emissions from 

the burning of high-sulfur oil contribute to a contravention of anv 

applicable ambicnt air quaiit) standard. or significantly degrade ambiel;! 

air quality. or that the applicant has failed to honor or comply with its 

provisions in pan or in Whole.] 

(a) 

OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING AND SCIENCE 

COASTAL MANAGEMENT OFFICE 

Notice of Extension of Comment Period 

Coastal Permit Program Rules 

Coastal Zone Management Rules 

Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rules 

Wind and Solar Energy 

Proposed New Rules: N.J.A.C. 7:7-7.30 and 7.31 

Proposed Amendments: N.J.A.C. 7:7-1.3, 2.1,2.3,4.2 

and 7.2; 7:7E-3.38, 3.49, 3C.2, 7.4, 7.14 and 8.12; 

and 7:13-7.1 and 7.2 

Take notice that the Department of Environmental Protection (the 

Department) tS eA1ending the comment period for proposed new rules and 

amendments to the Coastal Permit Program rules. NJ.A.C. 7:7; Coastal 

Zone Management rules. NJ.A.C. 7:7E; and Flood Hazard Area Control 

Act rules. N.J.A.C. 7:13 relating to wind and solar ener£\'. Amendments 

and new rules are proposed to the Coastal Permit Progra;;'; rules. NJ.A.C. 

7:7 that add a new permit-by-rule and two new coastal general permits 

for the constrtlction of wll1d turbines on land: add a new permit-by-rule 

for the construction of solar panels: and describe the situations in which 

construction of a wind turbine or solar panel does not require a coastal 

pcrmit. Amendmcnts to thc Coastal Zonc Manae:ement rulcs. NJA.C. 

7:7E, arc proposed to facilitate thc construction ;r wind turbll1es in the 

coastal zone in appropriate locations. identify paflicular areas where 

construction of large scale w1I1d turbines would not be appropriate. and 

set forth monitoring. habllat evaluation and impact assessment 

requirements for birds. bats and marine ore.anisms. Amendments are also 

proposed that would allow the eonstruc~lOn of a demonstration wind 

energv facillll' in the ocean waters of thc State to assist in assessino the 

impa~ts of su~h a facility. Further. amendments are proposed to the Flood 

Hazard Area Control Act Rules. NJ.A.C. 7:13. to add a new permit-byruic for the construction of wind turbines on land. 

This notice of proposal was published in the New Jersey Register on 

September 8. 200Y at 41 KJ.R. 31611Ia). The comment period for this 

noticc of proposal was originall) scheduled to close on November 7. 

200'!. Thc Department is extending the comment period bl' 30 days to 

Monda). December 7. 2009. Written C<lmlllents mav be ~ubmilted bv 

December 7, 2004 to: _. 

Gar\' J. Brower. Esq. 

Attcntion: DEI' Docket No. 12-09-08/734 

Officc of Legal Affairs 

Department of Envlromnental Protection 

40 I East Stale Street. 4th Floor 

P.O. Box 402
 

Trcnton. New Jersey 08625-0402
 

PROPOSALS 

HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES 

(b) 

SENIOR SERVICES AND HEALTH SYSTEMS 

BRANCH 

DIVISION OF HEALTH FACILITIES EVALUATION 

AND LICENSING 

Criminal Background Investigations: Nurse Aides, 

Personal Care Assistants and Assisted Living 

Ad ministrators 

Proposed Readoption: N.J.A.C. 8:431 

Authorized By: Hcather Howard. Commissioncr. Dcpartmcnt of 

Hcalth and Senior Services. 

Authority: N.J.S.A. 26:2H-7.21 and 26:2H-86. 

Calendar Reference: See Summary bclow for explanation of 

cxccption to calcndar requiremcnt. 

Proposal Number: PRN 2009-350. 

Written comments on the proposal must be postmarked on or before 

January 15.2010 and mailed to: 

Ruth Charbormeau. Director 

Office of Legal and RegulDtory Affairs 

Office of the Commissioner 

Department of Health and Senior Services 

PO Box 360 

Trcnton, NJ 08625-0360 

The agency proposal follows: 

Summar\' 

NJ .A.C. 8:431. which addresses crj~lI1al histon back£round chccks 

for nurse aides. personal care assistants and assisted-livin£ 'administrators 

is scheduled to expire on May 14. 2010, pursuant to N~J.S.A. 52:J4B5.lc. NJ.A.C. 8:431 was first adopted by the Department of Hcalth and 

Senior Services in 1999. The expiralion date of thc fides was extended b\ 

gubernatorial directive from April 19. 2004 10 October 19. 2004. Sec 3(1 

N.J.R. 2421(a). NJ.A.C. 8:431 expired on October 19. 2004. The rules 

were then adopted as new rules effective Novcmber 15. 2004. See. 36 

N.J .R. 304Ila). 5129(a). At the time thc law took cffcct. it onlv requircd 

that those persons seeking initial certification as a Illll'se aide ~r personal 

care assistant submit to a criminal histor\, background check. Pursuant to 

P.L. 2000. c. 20. all currently certified nursc' aides and personal care 

assistants are required to complete a criminal hislOry background check 

as a condition of recertification of Ul0se credentials. P.L. 2002. c. 25 

requires all applicants for certi fication or recertification as an assisted 

living administrator to submit to thc criminal history background ehcck 

process. 

The rules proposed for readoption would continue to establish the 

process by which imerested individuals can complete the required 

fingerprint-supported check. as well as the process for obtaining 2 

delermination of rehabilitation if the individual has been comiclcd of a 

disqualifylllg offense. NJ.S.A. 26:2H-83 sels forth classes of offenses 

and crimes that disqualify a person from certification as a nurse aide. 

personal care assistant or assisted living administrator. The mles 

proposed for readoption would continue to identifv the classes of offcnses 

enumerated at N.J .S.A. 26:2H-83. and Jist the· required steps thai an 

applicant must takc to filc for a dctcrmination of rehabilitation. further. 

the rules proposed for readoption would continue to provide tht 

assessment criteria the Department will COnllllue to usc 111 we12hin2 a 

request for D determination of rehabilitation. The rules propo~ed -for 

readoption would continue to define the steps an applicant necds 10 take 

to oblain a condilional certification thai would permit the applicant to 

work during the course of the background investigation. and colllall1 

penalt)' provisions applicablc to individuals who file false applications foc 

conditional certification. The mles proposed for readflDiion would 

continue to establish the administrative hearing options ~vailable for 

persons who are disqualified from certification final I,. thc ruies 

proposed for readoption would eontinue to provide for ·the erimm"l 

background investIgation registr) the Department is reqUIred to keep on 

(ClT~ 41 I\.J.R. 4168; NEW JERSEY REGISTER. MONDA\', NOVEMBER 16,2009