# ENCLOSURE3

November 16, 2009NewJerseyRegisterpublicationofproposed amendments toN.J.A.C.7:27-9

Nell'Jersev ISan EqualOpporlunitvEmplovcr IPrin/ed 011 ReevcledPaperalldRecvclahlcENVIRONMENTAL !'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 orother compliancerequirements on small businesses. The rules proposed for readoption with amendments impose land management responsibilities on the Department. but nO[ on members ofthe general public.

Smart Growth Impact Executive Order No. (2002) rcquires State agencies that adopt. amend or repeal any rule to describe the impact ofthe proposed rule on the achievement ofsmart growth and implementation ofthe 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 ofthe impact ofreadopting these rules with amendments on smart growth and the State Plan. The proposed readoption of the rules is expected to contribute to the preservation, propermanagement and public use ofopen 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 ofsmart growth 

### or on the implementation ofthe State Plan. Housing**AlTordabilit~'** Impact

Pursuantto 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.

SmartGrowthDevelopment 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. ifany on smart growth developmcnt. Since thcsc rules conccrn the managcmentofStatcowned 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 DevelopmentandRedevelopmentPlan.

Full text ofthe rules proposed for readoption may be found in the NewJerseyAdministrativeCode at NJ.A.C. 7:5A.

Full text 

### ofthe proposed amendments follows (additions indicated in boldface thus: deletions indicated in brackets [thus]):

SUBCHAPTER 1. NATURALAREAS ANDTHE NATURAL AREAS SYSTEM

7:5A-1.13 Natural Areas System

(alThe designated components of the Natural Areas System are as follows'**L-~.** (Nochange.)

5. BearSwamp East Natural Area: i.-iii. (Nochange.) iv. Administering Agency: Division of[Parks and Forestry] Fish and Wildlife. through IBclieplain State Forest] Millville Wildlife ManagementArea.

6.-9. (Nochange.) 10. CapcMavWetlands NaturalArca: i.-iii. (No change.)
1\.Administenng Agency: Division of[Parks and Porestry] Fish and Wildlife. through Cape**Ma~** IPoint State Park] Coastal Wetlands Wildlife ManagementArea: 11.-18. (No change.) 19. IlacklebarneyNatural Area: i.-iii. (No change.I PROPOSALS

il'. Administering Agency: Division of Parks and Forestry. through [Voorhees State Park] SpruceRun Recreation Area:

20.-23. (No change.)**r2~.** LibertyParkNatural Area: i. Location: Liberty State Park. Jersey City, Hudson County: ii. Management Objective: preservation ofa salt marsh in upper New York Bay and created uplands:

iii. Interim Classification: conservationpreserve; 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'IiaturalArea: i. Location:**Libert~'** StatePark,Jersey**Ci~·.** Hudson**Count~':** 

### ii. Management Objective; preservation of a salt marsh in uppcr NewYork Barand createduplands; iii. InterimClassification: conservation preserve; h'. Administel'ing Agency: Division of Parks and Forestry, throughLibert)· State Park; 33.-44. (No change.)



# (a)

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AirQuality Management Sulfurin Fuels Proposed Amendments: N.J.A.C.7:27-9.2 Proposed Repeal: N.J.A.C. 7:27-9.5
Authorized By: MarkN. Mauricllo. Acting Commissioner. DepartmentofEnvironmental Protection. Authority: NJ,S,A. 13:IB-3(e), 13:10-9and 26:2C-I e! seq. CalendarReference: See Summarybelow for explanation of exception to calcndarrequirement. DEI' DockelNumber: 

### 14-09-10/676. Proposal Number:PRN 2009-341.

A publichearingconcerningthis proposal and the proposed revision
tothe StateImplementation Plan (SIP) will be held on: TuesdayJanuary 5, 2010at 10:00A.M. at: NewJerseyDepartmentofEnvironmental Protection FirstFloorHearing Room 40I EastState Street Trenton, NewJersey Directionstothe 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: AliceA. Previte, Esq. Attn: DEP DocketNo. 14-09-10/676 OfficeofLegalAffairs NewJersey DepartmentofEnvironmental Protection 401 East State Street4thFloor PO Box 402

. 

### Trenton, NewJersey**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 public hearing provide a copy ofany prepared text to the stenographer at thehearing.

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 ofthe**electronicalJ~** submitted comments. Microsoft Word 6.0 or above is prefen·ed. Macintosh fomlats should not bc used. Each comment should be identifiedby the appliCableNJ.A.C. citation. withthe commenter'sname andaffiliation following the comment. This rule proposal can be viewed or downloaded from the Department"swebsite athttp://'''''''''''.state.nj.us/dcp/rules. The agency proposal follows

(CITE41 N.J,R. 4156) NEWJERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY,NOVEMBER 16,2009

### PROPOSALS

Summary Since the Department has provided a GO-day comment period on this notice ofproposal. the notice is excepted fi-om the nllemaking calendar requirementpursuantto 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 gradcofthcfucl oil: numbers 1.2.4.5 and 6gradc fucl oils. The Department is proposing new maxinll1m sulfur content standards for all grades offuel oil (except No.5, No.6 and heavier grades in Zones 3. 

### 4 and 6. as discussed below). to take effectJuly 

### 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 takeeffectJuly 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 ofthe Mid-AtlanticlNortheast Visibilitv Union (MANf-VU). a regional phuming organization that helps' states in the Mid· Atlantic/NOlthcastU.S. develop and coordinate their Regionall1aze State Implementation Plan (SIP). Accordingly. the Department does not proposenew maximum sulfurcontent standards for those grades in Zones 3.4and6.

The Department is also proposing to amend the maximum sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions standard for combustion offuel 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 offucl oil in all zoncs. except No.5. No.6 and heavier grades inZones 3. 4 and 

### 6. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7;27-9.1. "Zone I"meansAtlantic, Cape May, Cumberland,and Ocean Counties. "Zone 2" means IIunterdon. Sussex. and Warren Counties. "Zone 3" means Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer Countiesexcept those municipalities includedinZone 6. "Zone4" means Bergen, Essex, Hudson. Middlesex., Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset. and Union Counties. "Zone 5" means Salem County. "Zone6"

means in Burlington County, the municipalities ofBass River Township, Shamong Township. Southampton Township. Tabernacle Township. Washington Township, Woodland Township, and in Camden County, Waterford Township. These zones were created when therules were first promulgated. to take into account Ule population. oil burning sources and resulling S02 emission densities ofthe counties in the State. Theexisting rules allow for the use ofhigher 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 ofthc air quality necd to rcduce cmissions of S02 ovcr largcr

areas to address long**r~nge** transport offine particlesandregional 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 smallerthan 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 ofa low sulfur fuel strategy. New Jersey committed to propose this course ofaction 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 andthe 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 constitntca proposcd amcndmcntto thc Statc's SIP. Background

Fuel oil is a liquid or liquefiable petroleum product. burned for electriciry or for the generation ofheat or power. that is derived directly

or indirectly fi-om crude oil. Crude oil is a mixture ofhydrocarbons that exists in natural nnderground reservoirs and is made into petroleum 

### ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIO:\

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 ofthe distillate fuels) become gasoline. kerosene andjetfuel. Theproposed rules do not affectthese 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 ofrefinery 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 ofdistillate 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 andmarine vessels,

Thercsidual fuel oils contain significantquantities ofash. 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 ProtcctionAgency. Scptcmbcr 1998, http://www.cpa.gov/ ttniehief/ap<l2/index.htmI) New**Jerse~** and other states regulate the sulfur content of fuel oil consistentwith ASTM International's (ASTM) standard D396 for heating oil.J\STMD396 includes amaximum sulfurcontentof5,000ppm. 1n the 1970s. many states adopted their own heating oil suIfur requirements. including Connecticut (3,000 ppm), Maine (3.000 ppm in someregions), 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 ofnon-road diesel fuel. The USEPA implemented a low sulfur diesel program (maximum sulfur
content of 500 ppm) in 2007 (40 CFR 80.51O(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 alsoused to poweroceangoingvessels. whichhave 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 vesselsand tug/towboats. 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 OrganizationlIMO) memberstates

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-weightspecification of5.000ppm. effectiveJanuary 1.2020, On March**~i,** 2009. the U.S. and Canada proposed to the IMO that it designate an Emission Control Area compnsed ofgeographic regions of



### NEWJERSEYREGISTER, MONDAY,NOVEMBER 16, 2009 

### (CITE41 ;';.J.R.4157)

### EN\'IRONMI-]\TALI'ROTECTION

their coastal waters. In the proposcd Emission Control Area. the**nc~angoing** vessel fuel oil would**hav~** a maximum allowable sulfur-byweight specification 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.. October20081

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

AIr Contammant Emissions

Sulfuroxide emissions are generated dll!'ing the combustion offuel oil from the oxidation of sulfur contained in the fhcl oil. The amount of uncomrolled sulfll!' oxide emissions IS almost entirely dependent on the suifur content of the fuel, and is not significantly affected by burner design or grade offuel being fired. Distillate fuel oils (No.2 and lighter) generate less sulfur oxide emissions because they contain less sulfurthan residual oils (No.5 and 6). The majority ofsulfur oxide emissions from convcntional combustion S)'stems are in the form ofsulfw' 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 significantly reduces directpaniculateemissions.

502 contributcs to thc formation offinc particlcs in ambicnt air. 502 interacts witb othergases and particles in tbe airto 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 ofunburned 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 stackorafter 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 OverviewofBenefits. Costs. and lmolementation Issues. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use

### M~nagement (NESCAUM). December 2005) These pollutants are reduced whenthe sulfurcontent offuel oil is lowered.

Sulfatc is thc dominant constitucnt of haze-forming particlc pollution

across theMANE-VUregion. ItaloneaccOlUllS for anywhere from one-halfto 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 ormore)of the total line panicles mass in the entire MANE-VU region. (Contributionsto 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-in-the-north**ea.~l-and-m** id-atlantic-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 AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS). !'HOPOSALS

NatlOnDI Ambient AirQualITY 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 propertydanlage, which are referredto 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 standardof0.030partspermillion (ppm) and a 24-hour standardof0.]40 ppm (40 CFR 50.4). The secondary (welfare-hased) standard for SO, 

### is 0.500 ppm overathree-holl!'period (40 CFR50.5).

The USEPA is currently considering more stringent NAAQS for finc particulates and ozonebecause ofknown health effects below the current NAAQS. Both fine panicles and ozone formation wil1 be reduced as a result ofthe proposedrules.

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

area ofthe country as either in attainment or In nonattainment with those NAAQS. States witb areas designated as "nonattainmen(" for anycriteria pollutant must develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that show how they will bring those areas into attainment of the standard bv their designated attainmentdates. Once an areameets its allamment date. it can be redesignated as "attainment." States must submit maintenanceplans to theUSEI'll. for these redesignated areasto ensurecontinuedattainment in the areas. These redesignated areas are referred to as "maintenance areas:'

Annual Fine ParticulateNAAQS

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 ofthe 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 areaareBurlington. Camden and GloucesterCounties.

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 CFR5

### J.I000 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 airtoxics) that complementthe cffortsto attain the annual finc paniclcsNAAQS and further improve air quality in an effortto meet the daily fine panicles standard of35**~gm;1.** DadvFine ParticulateNAAOS

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) ofthe Clean Air Act). for any new NAAQS. each state recommendsto the USEI'll. areas ofthe Slale that should bedesignated as in nonattainmcnt. Althoueh finc oarticles conccntration in Ncw Jcrsc\ has improved since Dece'ffiber 20'04. the air quality in several areas

### ~I NewJersey does notmeet the daily fine particles standard.

In December 18,2007.NewJcrse,'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 JERSEYREGISTER, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009

### PROPOSALS

that Knowlton Township in Warren COlillty be included in the Northampton-Lehigh County (PA) nonattainmentarea. In response to this request. then-Regional Administrator Steinberg ofthe 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 additionaljustification forthis request

on September 17. 2008 and October 20, 2008. The USEPA has not fmalized the designation for the 24-hour fine particles nonattainment in NewJersey.
ReelOnal Haze

Fine particles are the major cause ofvisibility impairment in the U.S. Visibility impairmentcaused by the collection ofairpollutantsemitted 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 (PM25) 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/
topics/re

### gional-hazelre

### gional-haze-documents) 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 ofthe 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

## DayMass [2000-2004J

Soil**El<'I~!ltllt** 

### CarDoll

(SIP forRegional Haze Proposal. September5.2008. 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 ofaetion that includes the adoption and Implementation ofa low sulfur fbel strategy that focuses on reducing. SO, cmissions from stationary fuel rombustion

sources. (Statement ofthe Mid-AtlanticlNortheast Visibility Union (MANEVU\ Concerning a Course ofAction Within MANE-VU Tov.arct Assuring Rcasonable Progress. JW1e 20. 2007. (MANE-VU 2007 Statement). http://WVow.manevu.orgidocumenLasp?fview=F(IrmaI o/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 

### 1'01lowing national visibility goal: "Congress hereby declares as a national goal the prevention ofany 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) Sulfateis a significant factor in creatmghazy conditions. sinceitis the dominantcontributor to fine particlesmass that causes these conditions in theEastern U.S. Figure 2a belowreflects sulfate as the largest contributor
to fine particles mass at NewJersey'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 ofestimated 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. Suifate'srelative contributiontototal 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 ofestimated 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 BrigantincWildcrncss Arca(2000-2004)



### 20%WorstDayHaze**[2000-:00~** 

### ]

Soil CO:1T5e Elemental 

# ,,1:\,,\

Carbon

mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmadeairpollution," The USEPA addressed the problem of visibility impairment in two phascs. Thc 1980 USEPArcgulations (40 CFR51.300-51.307) addrcsscd what was temled "reasonahly attributable" visibility irnpainnent or "plumeblight," Reasonably attributable visibility impairment is the result ofemissions from one or a few sourcesthat are generally located in close proximityto a specificClass I area. "Plumeblight"describes a discrete or coherentplume ofpollution moving across the horizon oracross ascenic view. When it amended the Clean Air Act in 1990. Conl!ress added Section I69B (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]. includingcriteria for mcasuring "rcasonablcprogress' towardthe 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 JERSEYREGISTER, MONDAY,NOVEMBER 16. 2009 (CITE41 

### 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 ofthe 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 CFR51.301. and added new -l0 CFR51J08 and 51.309

to 

### address regional haze visibilit) impairment on anational level.

The goal ofthe 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 Implementthese measures. The analysis and measures must be included in a SIP. Statcs with Class 1areas are further required to establish Reasonable Progress Goals for Class 1 

### areas within their borders. using the results ofthe analysis ofreasonable measures as awa) to demonstrate movement towards the national goal ofthc absence ofall manmade pollution from national parks and wildcrness arcas by 2064. States are reqUIred to reassess the progress toward the 2064 goal in ftveand J

### O-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 ofprogress 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 ofthe 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 USEPA 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 ofsulfate 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 ofthe mcasurcs containcd in thc Statc's SIP. To address the impact on Federally protected Class 

### 1areas. 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 ofvisibility in Class T

### areas. and remedying any existing impairment ofvisibility 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 particlesNAAQS.

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 of2014. in response to feedback from the fuel oil industry on the time reqUIred to lower the sulfurin fuel regionally and in consultation with the otherMANE-VU stales. Otherwisc. the proposed sulfm-in-fucllimits arc consistent with thosecontaincd in thc MANE-VU low sulfur fuel oil strategy for the states in the innerzone. 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 ofNo. 2distillate 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 Ithrough 6. based 011 

### the level ofSO, nonatlainment ofthe zone at the time the

### ~Ies were promulgated. To

### e~sure maintenance ofthe SO: standard. the Department is proposing to retain the more stringent maximum sulfUr content standard of3.000ppm for heavy oil III

### Zone 4in 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 ofoiL 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 gradeoffuel 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 meton a number ofoecasionswith members oftheNewJersey's regulated fuel oil community to generally discuss what would be required for New Jersey facilities to complywith the lower sulfurin fuel oil standards.

Theproposed amendments are more fully described below.

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

### Sulfurcontentstandards



### The proposed amendments atNJ.A.C. 7:27-9.2 includethe 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 million. 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 3.000ppm.

These proposednew standards in Tables I

### Band28are consistentwith thc MANE-VU emission management strategy for new standards lor maximum allowable sulfur in fucl. which would reduce sulfur content in the mnerzone states (including NewJersey).**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. 6residual 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) 

### NEWJERSEY REGISTER,MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009

### PROPOSALS

calculation for No.2 fuel oil with a sulfur hy weight content of0.0015 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 ofTable 2A. These standards apply not only to NO.2 grade fuel oiL but to 

### lighter grades. as well. This is consistentwith Table 

### I. which correctly refers to "No. Q

### & lighter" grades offuel oil. To further simplify all four tables. the Departmentproposes 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 proposednewTables 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 orderto 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 effectwhen it was stored. but does not comply with the operative standard. the Departmentproposes 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 NewJersey as ofJuly 1,2014 andJuly 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 berepealed. The Departmentalso proposes to replace the reference in N.J.A.C. 7:27-9.2(a) and (b) to "a percentagc" with "thc applicableparts pcI' million," and to makea 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 Incentivefor conversion to coal orothersolid 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 airpollutionreduction.

The proposed amendments will primarily reduce emissions of S02, which is an air contaminant and a prccursor in thc formation of finc particles in ambientairandhaze. 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 offine panIcles. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIO,'\"

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 associatedwith fine particles exposure include: Prematuremortality: Aggravationofrespiratory and cardiovasculardisease: Decreased lung function and difftculty 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 liveseachyearand preventhundreds ofthousandsofhospital admissions. doctor visits. absences from work and school and respiratory illnesses in children. Individuals particularly sensitive to fine particles exposure includeolder adults. peoplewith heartand 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 ofever)" 50 hospitalizations. Ofthese 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 ofthe way it reacts with other substances in the air. S02 reaclS with other chemicals in the airto 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 dimculty for people with asthma who are active outdoors. Longer-teml exposures to high levels ofS02 gas and particles cause respiratory illness and aggravate cxisting heart disease. (Suifur Dioxide: llealth and Environmcntal Impacts of S02/Six Common Pollutants/Air & 

### RadiationiUSEPA. http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/s02/hlthI.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 NonattainmentAreas 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 precursorfor 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 lungdiscascs.

The Deparlment anticipates that there will be no social impact from thc proposed repeal ofN.J.A.C. 7:27-9.5. since there have not been. nor will there be, any entities that have orwill avail themselves oftheoptions offered by these outdated, and no longer applicable, incentives to 

### convert
to 

### coal combustion.

NEWJERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY,NOVEMBER 16. 2009 (CITE41 J\.J.R.4161)

### ENVIRO"l'MENTAL PROTECTION

Economic Impact 

### The Department anticipates that the overall economic impact of the proposed amendments will be apositive one.

The Departmcnt evaluated thc availability and production cost of hcating oil with sulfur-b)'-weight specifications of500 ppm (low sulfur heating oil) in 2014 and 15 ppm (ultra-low suifur heatingoil) 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 apublic 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 andultra-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 ofa 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 ofReducing 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 andAPI 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 NYSERDA Report finds overall savings to 

### consumers in terms of reduced heating equipment service andmaintenancecosts from usiftglow sulfurhealing oil.
TheNORARepon

The NORA Repol1 analyzes the availabilityofand the cost to produce low sulfurheating oil in 2012, and ultra-low sulfurhcatingoil in 2018, to supply the demands ofthe northeast U.S. market. The report analyzes availability of low sulfur heating oil as of 2012 because thaI was the targeted implementation date ofthe low sulfurheating 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 ofthe program for the outer zone ofthe MANE-VlJ rcgion was 2014. The cntirc MANE-VU rcgion was targeted to require the use ofultra-low sultllr hcating oil by 2018. The NORA Report focuses on the supply and demand ofthe northcast U,S. heatingoil market. becausethisarea 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, ofwhich the eastern portion ofthe U.S. is a part. By 2012, approximately 76 percent ofdistillate 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 ofthe 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 carlierand adequatenotice 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

### 4and 2016 will meet the demandofNewJersey.

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 arapid. 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 meetthis demand.

According to the NORA Report, producing low sulfur distillate that meets the proposed 500 ppm standard will costrefineries 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 suifur contcnt operation could be as much as four cents per gallon lower.
TheAPI Report

The API Report provides additional support for the tCasibility ofthe 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 ofeach 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 oflow 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 representapproximately 73 and 27 percent ofthe total distillate hlel oil production in the eastern U.S. for 20I0, respectively. This closely corresponds to the nationwiderelativeproduction values for high and low sulfur hcatingoil in 20I0, whieh thcAPI reports as 423 tbdfor low sulfur heating oil as compared to 155 tbdofhigh-sulfur heatingoil.

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 therewill be enoughsupply to satisfyNewJersey'smarket for low sulfurheatingoil.
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 oflow 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 180,000LOns with

an economic benefit in reduced health care costs or$3.63 billion. which corresponds to morethan $20,000 ofbenefitper ton ofS02 removed.

No.2 Oil



### The Department used information from the NORA, API. NESCAUM reports and EIA data to determine the costs and benefits ofimplementing the proposed low and ultra-low sulfurstandards. As discussed above, the API report found that the 2010 production oflow stJifurheatingoil 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 ofthe total distillate fuel oil production in the eastern U.S. for 2010. To determine the total amount ofhigh-sulfur heating oil consumed in New Jersey in 2007, the Department applied the 27 percent hig.h sulfurheating oil to total heating oil ratio determined from the API Report to the 316,134 thousand gallons per year (tgy) ofLOtal 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 :'0J

### 6, which ma;' well be lower than this amollnt. This is because heating oil consumption in the State has leveled offfrom 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 effortsshouldreduce fuel oil consumption.

(CITE411\.J.R.4162) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 

### 16, 2009PROPOSALS

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 ofUSEPA's AP-42 SO; emission factor of 142 times S 10 the 85.356tgy ofhigh sulfur heating oil projected to be consumed in New Jersey in 2014. This emission factor is expressedin units ofpounds ofS02 perthousand gallons. and the S in the equation is the percent sulfurconcentration by weightofthe 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 of0.218 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 ofS02 emissions of 1.030 tpy.

Thc cost to convert the projected 85,356 gallons ofhigh sulfur heating oil to low sulfur hcating oil is cstimatcd to bc $5.8 million. This is bascd

on the application ofthe NORA cost estimate of6.8 cents per gallon for converting high sulfurheating oil to low sulfur-heating-oiL

In addition to the 1,030 tpy of S02 emission reduction from the implementation ofthe 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 20J6. The Department used the same estimation methodology applied above. but with S representing a reduction of average suifur-by-weight concentrations inthe projected 316,134tgy oflow sulfurheating oil from 0.05 percent (500 ppm) to 0.0015 percent (15 ppm). (Final Regulatory Analysis: Control ofEmissions 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 millionestimated costto implementthelow sulfurstandard 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 ofboth the proposed low sulfur and ultra-lowsulfur standards for rcsidcntial hcatingoil.

No

. .JOil

Currently, only one facility that is usmg No.4 fuel oil in New Jersey, AccurateForming in Hamburg, participates in the Department'sEmission 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 basedon a reduction in average sulfurcontent of 0.7 percent (7.000 ppm) tothe allowablesulfurby 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 ofAir 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 Departmentconsideredhistorical pricedatafmm the DivisionofPurchaseand Property in the New Jersey Department ofthe**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 ofsulfur-by-wcight (0.3 perccnL 0.5 percenL and 1.0 percent). Because infomlation on more than one soecification ofNO.4 fuel oil is not available from the Treasury Department, the Department uses the historical average price difference on the available pnces forNo.6filel oil.

The historical average price difference from August 30. 2004 to June 25, 2009 for No.6 fuel oi

### I with suifur-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 ofthe 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 perton ofS02removed.

No 6Oil

Lowering the allowable sulfur content orNo.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 Statementdata, most ofthe 9.3 million gallons ofNo. 

### 6fuel 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 of0.8 percent (8,000 ppm) to the allowable sulfur contenl of0.5 percent (5,000 ppm) for the 9.3 million gallons per year of No. Gfuel oil affected by the proposed change in suifur specifications. The S02 emission factor. expressed in units ofpounds ofS02perthousand gallons. is 157 times S. (lJSEPA AP-42 Compilation orAir Pollution Emission Factors, Volume 

### L Extcrnal Combustion Sourccs. Chaptcr 1.3. Fucl Oil Combustion, September 1998)



### In orderto estimatetheincrementalcost oftheaffectedfueL the Department considered historical pricedata from the Division ofPurchase and Property in the New Jersey Department of the Treasnry (hnp:/lwww.state.nj.uslce:ibinltreasurvlpurchase/fuel/fuelsearch.pl?fueltype=oil46) As discussed above. pricesforNo.6fuel oil are availableforthree specilicationsofsulfurbyweight (0.3 pcrccnt, 0.5 perccnt. and 1.0 pcrccnt). Thc historical avcragc pricc difference from August30, 2004 to July 27, 2007

### inNo.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 proposed2014 standard for NewJersey consumers onthe affected 9,3 million gallons per year ofNo.6 fuel oil 

### is $469,650 per year. 

### TIus corresponds to $2,145 per ton S02 removed as a result ofthe proposed decrease in sulfur
contentin No.6oil.

ESII/llaledNet 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 Departmentcalculatedbasedon the NESCAUM health care benefitfactor of $20,167 per ton of502removed 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 oilsrules wilJ have a net benefit inhealth caresavingsof$11.2 million.

NYSERDA Report NYSERDA and Brookhaven National Laboratories conducted athreeyear 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 ofheating equipment. which meant that cleaning ofthe 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 of0.05 percent. TIllS savll1gs would be equivalentto one to two percentofthe roughly $2,000
cost offuel oil peryearperhome.

The NYSERDA Report also estimated that fouling a furnace SYSlem with approximately 2,500 ppm fuel oil reduces efficiency 

### by approximatelytwo percentperyear, and more than 50 percentofdeposits

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

NEWJERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009 (CITE411\,J.R. 4163.1ENVIRONMENTAL 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(",: sulfurl;eating oil will extend furnace life and could reduce**th~** cost of new oil furnaces. because ofthe ability to use lower-cost materials in their construction and more compact hCJ\ exchangers.

Economic Impact ofProposed SulfurStandards

The economic beneflt ofreducing the negative impacts ofhigh 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 ofthe 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 NewJersey 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 ofelectricity for the consumerwill alsobe proportionately low. With an estimated net health benefit of$1\.2 million. the cost ofthe proposed mles is more than offset by the benefits rcceived.

EconomicImpact ofProposed 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 offeredby 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 ofSO,. 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 andregional haze. acid deposition. nitrifIcation ofwater bodies and accumulation ofgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ("LowSulfur Heating Oil in the Northeast States: An Overview of Benefits. (osts and Implementation Issues," NESCAUM. December 2005. www.nescaum.org! documents/report06010Iheatingoil.pdll

As discussed in the Economic Impactabove. the Departmentestimates 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 ofNo.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 loweringthe sulfur-by-weightconcentrations in the typical grades offuel oils used in heating is included in Tables Band (below. Table B

Emission R.eductlons from Proposed Sulfur in Fuel Standards EffectiveJul)' I. 2014
Proposed SO, Grades ofOil Typical Existing Emission Standards Sulfur-in-Fuel Sulfur-in-Fuel Reductions 2014 Standardsin in 2014 in Ions per year(tpYI No.2 & OJ percentto 0.05 percelll 1.030 lighter (500 ppml 0.2 percenl (3.000 to 2.000 ppm) 1'<0.4 0.25 percent 14 0.7 percent (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 3.000ppm) 

# I
I Total emissionreductionsin 2014from proposed 1.250tpy ne" sulfur-m-fuelstandards

Table C

EmISSion Reductions from Proposed Sulfur 111 Fuel Standards EffectiveJuly I, 2016
Typieal Proposed Proposed Sulfur Dioxide Gradesof Sulfur-in-Fuel Sulfur-in-Fuel Emission 

### Oil Standardsin Standards in Reductions in 2014 2016 2016 in tons per
vear (tpv) No.2 & liehter 0.05 percent (500 ppm) 0.0015 percent (IS ppm) I 294

294 from proposed new sulfur-in-fuel standards Totalemission reductions from proposed new 1otal additionalemission reductions in 2016

1.544

sulfur-in-fuel standardsin 2014 and 2016

Lowering the sulfur content of heating oil reduces particles emissions. Directparticle emissions from residential burners arereduced 80 percent from implementing a low sulfur heating oiI standard, which reducesthe level ofsulfur 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/reportOIiOI0 IheatingoiLpdf /) This is because reducing SO, emissions by reducing sulfur in heatingoil will also cause a similarreduction 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. (USEPAAP-42 Compilation ofAirPollution 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 ofcities. 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 ofnitrogen 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) NEWJERSEY REGISTER. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16.2009

### PROPOSALS ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTJOJli

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

Fine particles harm vegetation and ecosystems. contribute to the fonnation ofacid 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 reducingthe sulfate formed from SO,.

Another immediate effect ofreducing 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 offucl ncccssaryto opcratcthc 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 ofwhich 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 wiII have a positive environmental impact in New Jersey by reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide. fine particles, nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide. a11 ofwhich have negative impacts

on the environment as discussed above.

Thc Dcpartmcnt anticipatcsthatthcrcwill bc no cnvironmcntal impact from the proposedrepeal ofNJ.A.C. 7:27-9.5. since there have notbeen.

nor will there be. any emities that have or will avail themselves of the options offered bythese outdated. and no longer applicable. incentives to convertto coal combustion.

Federal StandardsStatement 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 ofsulfur in the fuel oil regulated by NJ.A.C. 7:27-9. Although the Department's suifur 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 withor participate in anyprogram establishedunder Federallaworunder

a State statutethatincorporates orrefersto 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 notrequire a Fcderal standards analysis.

Jobs Impact The Department anticipates that the proposed amendments may have

someimpacton employmentin the State. However. the netimpact should be neutral. Refineries. fuel storage facilities. fuel transporters and fuel distributors will likely modify their operations as necessary without the needto shut down operalions and/orreduce lheirworkforce.

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 employmentofconstructionworkers. 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 theoil heat industry are not expectedto have
an impact on overall employment. Without cleaner fueL the oil hcat industrymay have difficulty competingwith 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 oilheat industry.

There will be no impact onjobs 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 longerapplicable. incentives to COilvertto coal combustion. Agricultural Industry Impacl The Department anticipates that the proposed amendments will have a positivc impact on thc Statc's agriculturc industry. Suifur dioxidc contributes to acid rain and related crop and vegetation damage. A reduction ofSO, will result in less crop damage. A reduction of

### SO, will alsoresult in a reduction ill emissions ofprecursors ofsulfate paniculate
matter. which travel and deposit in soil and in water. According to the USEP

### A. 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/particles/health:htmI)

The proposed amendments will also reduce particulate matter accumulation on agricultural growth. This reduclion in accumulation will have a positive impactby reducing interference with photosynthesis.

Therewill be no agricultural industry impact from the proposed repeal ofNJ.A.C. 7:27-9.5, since there have not been, nor will there be, any entities that have orwill avail themselves ofthe options offered by these outdated, and no longer applicable, incentives to convert to coal combustion. RegulatoryFlexibilityAnalysis

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 businessbe reqUIred to retain aconsultantorother professional in ordcrto complywith thcproposcdamcndmcnts.

Thecostofprodncing 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 offuel oil before receiving a new delivery offuel oil that meets the new limits. wilhout requiring them to remove and dispose oftheold oil. This will mitigate the impactofthe proposed amendments Oil small businesses. as well as large businesses.

New Jersey is under a Federal mandate. pursuant to the authorilY of the Clean Air Act, to meet the health-based NAAQS and improve visibilityin Class Iareas. which requires reducmg. airpollutantemissions. failurc to achieve these reductions subJects New Jerscy to economic



### NEWJERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY,NOVEMBER 16,2009 

### (CITE411\.J.R.4165)

### ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION 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 ofthe 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.
SmartGrowth 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 ofthc 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 oftbe State Plan. As a result. the Dcpartment does not expect this rulemaking to have an impact on the State's achievement ofsmarrgrowtb. or implementation ofthe Statc Plan. Since the proposed amendments implement reductions of SO, emissions from the combustion offuel 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 strategyofreducingairpollution at the source.**Hou~ing** 

### AITordability Impact

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:1413-4. as amended effectiveJuly 17,2008.by P.L. 2008. c. 46. the Department has evaluated the proposed rulemaking
to 

### determine the Illlpact. ifany. on the affordability ofbousing. Lowering sulfur in fuel oil is expected to cnable the construction oflower cost and

more efficient heaters, thereby. reducing both the installation and operating cost ofoil heaters. However. the Department has detcrmined that tbe proposed amendments and repeal will evoke no change in the overall average costassociatedwithhousing in the State.
SmartGrowth DevelopmentImpact 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 proposedrulemaking 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 boldfacethus: dcletions indicated in brackcts [thus]l:

SUBCHAPTER9. SULFURIN FUELS

7:27-9.2 Sulfurcontentstandards

(a) No person shall Store. offer for sale. sell. delivcr or exchange in trade for use in New Jerscy fuel [which] that contains sulfurin excess of [a pcrcentage] the applicable parts per million by weight set fonh in Tables 

## III IA and IB ofthis section. except as provided in (c). (d) and lei beiowl. and N.J.A.C. 7:27-9,5J. Fuel stored in NewJerse)' that met the applicable maximum sulfurcontent standar'd ofTables IA or I B ofthis section at the time the fuel was stored in ]l;ew Jersey rna)' be stored, offered for sale, sold. delivered or exchanged in tradefor 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 [1J Ill. and I Boftbis section. except as provided in (c), (d)[,] and
IC) 

### below[. and NJ.A.C. 7:27-9.51. Fuel stored in New Jersey thatmel the applicable maximum sulfurcontent standard ofTables Ill. or IB ofthis section at the time it

### was stored in New Jersey may be used in NewJersey aftertheoperative date ofthe applicablestandardin IB, TABLE 

### [I] IA

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SULFUR 11\ FUEL EFFECTI\'E THROllGH ./lINE30.2014

[PercentSulfurj Parts perMillion 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

Greatcrthan 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 Gradesof Fuel Oil

No 2& I



### hghter

No.4

INo 5. NO.6 

## I &. 

### heaVier

TABLE IB

MAXIMUMALLOWABLESULFllRIN Fl'ELEFFECTIVE JULY 1.2014AND JULY 1.2016

PartsperMillion b\'

### Weight(ppm) Typical Classification bySSll Gradesof Viscosity at Zone Zoncs Zones 

## I Fuel Oil Zone 3 4&6 100°F I I 

### 2&5
500 500 500 lighter No.2& Less than or 500 equal to 45, IeITective including .Iuly l. gases 2014 through June30, 2016)
No.2& Lessthan or 15.0 15.0 lighter 15.0 15.0 equalto45. (eITective including .Iuly I. I gases 

### 20H,) )',0.4 2.500 

## I (eITective Greaterthan 2.500 2.500 2.500 45 butless .Iul)' I, than 145 2014) I i 

### No. 5. I'lo. Equalto or 5.000 5.000 5.000 

## I 3.000 6& I heavier greaterthan 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! 

### grossheat input. setforth in Tables [2] 2A and2B ofthis section

(CITE41 I\.J.R. 41(,6) NEWJERSEYREGISTER. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16,2009PROPOSALS

TABLE [2] 2A

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SULFURDIOXiDE EMISSIONS EFFECTIVE THROUGHJU:\'E30,2014

SO, Emissions(IlbsJIO·'Ibs Jlermillion BTU)

TYJlieal Grades ofFuel

Oil Classification**b~'** SSLI Viscosityat 100°F Zone 1 Zones 2& IZonel

5 Zone3 Zones4 & IZonel

6
NO.2 & lighter Less thanor equal to45. ineludinl!l!ascs 0.32 0.32 0.21 0.2\

I No.4 Greaterthan 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 SULFURDIOXIDEEMISSIONS EFFECTIVEJULY 1.2014ANDJULY 1,2016

I, TYJlical

Gradesof FuelOil C1assifieatioll 

### hySSU Viscosityat 100°F SO, Emissions**(Ibs~er** million BTlI)

Zone Zones Zones

1 2&5 Zone3 4&6
:"io.2 & Less thallor 0.0530 0.0530 0.0530 0.0530 Iil?;htcr (cffectivc July 1, 2014 equal to45, including gases

throul?;h June30, 2016\ I I
No.2& Less than or 0.00160 0.00160 0.00160 0.00160 Iil?;htcr (effective July 1, 2016) equal to45, including gases

:"io.4 Greaterthan 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 greaterthan 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 amathematical combination approved by the Depanment. Application for such approval shall be made to the Department III writing and must include: 

### I. eenificalion 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 combinationduring eacll 24-hourperiod will not exceedthe quantity of sul(ur dioxide expressed in pounds per million BTU gross heal input set forth in Tables [2J 2A and 2B of'this section: [and] ENVIRONMENTALPROTECT!O:"

3. Certification that the total sulfur dioxide emissions from the mathematicalcombination duringeach 24-hourperiod 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 ofapplying: land]



### 4. Identification ofeach fuel burning unit and stack to be included in the mathematical combination: landJ 5. Identification ofthe grades offuel 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 preconstructionpennitandcertificate underN.J.A.C. 7:27-8.anoperating 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 Environmental Protection Agency to be exceeded: and in areas where an ambient air quality standard is already exceeded, wiII not cause all incrcasc in ambientairconccntrationsgreaterthan the threshold increases
setforth in Table I ofN.J.A.C. 7:27-118.3]18.4; landJ 8-9.(No change.) (e) (No change.) 

### (f) If the identified grade of fuel oiI 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 bcdeterminedbytheviscosity classification.
[7:27-9.5 Incentive for conversion to coal orothersolid fuel

(a) The Departmentmay authorizeaperson to store, offerfor 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 aunit ofcomparable capacity at the same facility. will burn coal or other solid fuel in accordancewith a schedule approved by the Department: and 2. The high-sulfuroil will beburned for no longer than a period oftwo years ifane"xisting fuel burningunitis converted from burningoil orgas.
or three years ifthe conversion is accomplished by the installation o(a
newfuel burningunit; and 3. The appliZant demonstrates by air qltality simulation modelling or other methods acceptable to the Department that increases in the emissions ofair contaminants resulting from theuse ofthehigh-sulfuroil 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 airconcentrations greater than the threshOld increases set forth in Table 1ofN.J.A.C. 7:27-18.3; and

4. The sulfurdioxide emissionsfrom the burning ofcoal orother 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 pennit 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 sumofmoney no less than the difference between the cost of the high-sulfur oil used pursuant to the provisions ofthis section and the cost ofthe same grade oil which would otherwise be required under the provisions ofNJ.A.C. 7:27-9.2. Such payment shall be in addition to. and not in lieu of. an)

NEWJERSEYREGISTER, MONDAY,NOVEMBER 16,2009 (CITE41 "'..l.R.4167)

### EI\'VIHONMENTALPROTECTIOI\'

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 ofhigh-sulfur oil uscd. the COS! ofsuch oil. and the COS! ofan equivalent quanlIt, ofthe same grade oil which conforms
to the provisions ofNJ.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 ifthe DepDrtment determines that the emissions from the burning of high-sulfur oil contribute to a contravention of anv applicable ambicnt airquaiit) standard. or significantly degrade ambiel;! air quality. or that the applicant has failed to honor or comply with its provisions in panorin Whole.]



# (a)

OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING AND SCIENCE COASTAL MANAGEMENTOFFICE Notice of Extension ofComment Period Coastal Permit Program Rules CoastalZone Management Rules Flood Hazard Area ControlAct 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 newrules 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 areproposed to the Coastal PermitProgra;;';rules. NJ.A.C. 7:7 that add a new permit-by-rule and two new coastal general permits for the constrtlction ofwll1d turbines on land: add a new permit-by-rule for the construction ofsolar 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 ofthc State to assist in assessino the

## impa~ts of

## su~h a facility. Further. amendments areproposedto the Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rules. NJ.A.C. 7:13. to add a new permit-byruic for the construction ofwind turbines on land.

This notice ofproposal 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 December7, 2004 to: _. Gar\' J. Brower. Esq. Attcntion: DEI' DocketNo. 12-09-08/734 OfficcofLegal Affairs DepartmentofEnvlromnental Protection 40I East Stale Street.4th Floor P.O. Box 402 Trcnton. NewJersey 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 Administrators Proposed Readoption: N.J.A.C. 8:431
Authorized By: HcatherHoward. Commissioncr. Dcpartmcnt of Hcalth and SeniorServices. Authority: N.J.S.A. 26:2H-7.21 and 26:2H-86. CalendarReference: See Summary bclow for explanation of cxccption to calcndarrequiremcnt. Proposal Number: PRN 2009-350.

Written commentson the proposalmust bepostmarked on orbefore January 15.2010and mailed to: Ruth Charbormeau. Director Office ofLegal and RegulDtory Affairs Office ofthe Commissioner DepartmentofHealth and SeniorServices PO Box 360 Trcnton, NJ 08625-0360 Theagency 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 ofthc 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 submitto 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 certification 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 ofrehabilitation 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 identifvthe classes ofoffcnses enumerated at N.J.S.A. 26:2H-83. and Jist the·required steps thai an applicant must takc to filc for a dctcrmination ofrehabilitation. 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 applicablcto 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 finalI,. 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; 

### NEWJERSEYREGISTER. MONDA\',NOVEMBER 16,2009