[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35197-35200]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12458]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0375, FRL-9841-01-OLEM]

Recycling Education and Outreach; Grant Program and Model
Recycling Program Toolkit; Request for Information

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is developing and implementing several new programs as
directed by the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also
referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This action provides
the public with the opportunity to share information to inform the
development of both the Consumer Recycling Education and Outreach grant
program and the Model Recycling Program Toolkit. The education and
outreach grants will fund programs to improve the effectiveness of
residential and community recycling programs, including those that
tackle waste prevention, through public education and outreach. The
Model Recycling Program Toolkit is for state, local, and tribal
governments to use in carrying out their programs. The Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) within the EPA is seeking
information about effective strategies to reach consumers and encourage
them to engage in activities that reduce the generation of waste,
improve effective recycling, and reduce contamination in the recycling
stream. Information from a wide range of stakeholders involved in the
recycling system is encouraged, including but not limited to industry,
researchers, academia, state, tribal, and local governments including
U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, other federal agencies,
community groups, non-governmental organizations, the public and
international organizations.

DATES: Written comments and information must be received on or before
July 25, 2022. Information about these feedback sessions also will be
included in EPA's Sustainable Materials Management Newsletter. To
subscribe go to https://www.epa.gov/recyclingstrategy/forms/stay-connected.

ADDRESSES: EPA invites submission of the requested information through
one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting your
comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0375.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. For additional
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0375 for this notice. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending
comments see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this
document, contact Mya Sjogren, Resource Conservation and Sustainability
Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5306T,
Washington, DC 20460; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email:
[email protected]. For more information on this action please visit
https://www.epa.gov/rcra/infrastructure.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    Response to this RFI is voluntary. Responses to this RFI may be
submitted by a single party or by a team. Respondents should respond to
this RFI in a Microsoft Word (.docx) file or Adobe PDF (.pdf) file.
This document should contain the following:
     Two clearly delineated sections: (1) Cover page with
company name and

contact information; and (2) responses should indicate which topic and
specific questions are being addressed.
     1-inch margins (top, bottom, and sides).
     Times New Roman and 12-point font.
    Comments containing references, studies, research, and other
empirical data that are not widely published should include copies or
electronic links of the referenced materials. No confidential and/or
business proprietary information, copyrighted information, or
personally identifiable information should be submitted in response to
this RFI. Privacy Note: All comments received from members of the
public will be available for public viewing on Regulations.gov. In
accordance with FAR 15.202(3), responses to this notice are not offers
and cannot be accepted by the federal government to form a binding
contract. Additionally, those submitting responses are solely
responsible for all expenses associated with response preparation.

II. General Information

A. What is the purpose of this RFI?

    Under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58),
also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, EPA is directed to
develop several new solid waste recycling programs. This RFI covers the
following activities established by the law:
     Establishing a grant program to fund improvements to the
effectiveness of residential and community recycling programs,
including those that tackle waste prevention, through public education
and outreach.
     Developing a model recycling program toolkit to assist
states, tribes, and local governments to inform the public about
residential waste prevention (e.g., source reduction, reuse,
refurbishment, repair, composting) and residential or community
recycling programs to improve collection rates and decrease
contamination.
    This RFI seeks information from a broad array of stakeholders such
as industry, researchers, academia, state, territories, local, and
tribal governments, other federal agencies, community groups, non-
governmental organizations, the public, international organizations,
and all other stakeholders involved in education and outreach to
consumers and communities on waste prevention, recycling, and
composting. EPA is seeking information about effective strategies to
reach consumers and encourage them to engage in activities that reduce
the generation of waste, improve effective recycling, and reduce
contamination in the recycling stream.
    This RFI is part of a series of RFIs EPA will be issuing to inform
the development of new programs under the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law. Other RFIs that are related include those on the Solid Waste
Infrastructure for Recycling Grant Program and the Development of Best
Practices for Collection of Batteries to be Recycled and Voluntary
Battery Labeling Guidelines.

III. Background

    In 2018, approximately 292 million tons of municipal solid waste
(MSW) were generated in the United States, of which approximately 69
million tons were mechanically recycled and 25 million tons were
composted. Together, 32.1 percent of MSW (about 94 million tons) was
mechanically recycled or composted, preventing over 193 million metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent from entering the atmosphere (U.S.
EPA, 2020a). The National Recycling Strategy (https://www.epa.gov/recyclingstrategy), which is part one of a series on building a
circular economy for all, is focused on enhancing and advancing the
national municipal solid waste recycling system. The U.S. MSW recycling
system currently faces several challenges, including confusion about
what materials can be recycled and how the contamination of recycled
materials results in those materials being sent to landfills.
Environmental benefits of advancing the U.S. recycling system include
decreasing pollution and conserving energy. Preventing waste and
increasing recycling reduces climate, environmental, and social impacts
(pollution, health, economics) of materials use, and keeps valuable
resources in use instead of in landfills.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides $15 million per year for
five years in funding for ORCR to administer the Consumer Recycling
Education and Outreach grant program. The funding provided through
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is a critical opportunity for ORCR to
fund a range of high-impact projects to increase recycling, reduce
contamination in the recycling stream, and promote a circular economy
for sustainable materials management by informing the public about
residential or community recycling programs, providing information and
guidance about the materials that are accepted as part of these
recycling programs and overall increase collection rates and decrease
contamination in the recycling stream.
    Eligible entities include a state; a unit of local government; an
Indian Tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)); a Native Hawaiian
organization (as defined in section 6207 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7517)); the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands; the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; a nonprofit
organization; or a public-private partnership.
    Materials within the scope of this request include commonly
recycled and reused materials, such as aluminum, glass, paper and
plastics, as well as food, organics (yard waste, tree trimmings, wood,
etc.), textiles, electronics and construction and demolition materials.
Biosolids, hazardous waste and industrial wastes such as coal
combustion residuals or slag are not within the scope of this request.
Landfilling and incineration or combustion are not considered recycling
and are not within the scope of this request.
    Grant funds may be used for activities including public service
announcements; door-to-door education and outreach campaigns; social
media and digital outreach; an advertising campaign on recycling
awareness; the development and dissemination of specific toolkits for a
municipal and commercial recycling program, information on the
importance of quality in the recycling stream and the economic and
environmental benefits of recycling; and information on what happens to
materials after the materials are placed into a residential or
community recycling program; businesses recycling outreach; bin, cart,
and other receptacle labeling and signs; and other education and
outreach activities that are appropriate to improve recycling and
reduce contamination, such as reducing waste and reusing, repairing,
and refurbishing materials before they enter the recycling system.
    In addition to the grants, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
requires the development of a toolkit, which will, at a minimum,
include the following information; a standardized set of terms and
examples to describe materials that are accepted by a residential
recycling program; information that can be widely applied across
residential recycling programs; best practices for the collection and
processing of recycled materials; a community self-assessment guide to
identify gaps in existing recycling programs; training modules that
enable States and nonprofit organizations to

provide technical assistance to units of local government; access to
consumer educational materials that states, tribes, and units of local
government can adapt and use in recycling programs; a guide to measure
the outcomes or effectiveness of a grant received under the Education
and Outreach grant program, including standardized measurements for
recycling rates and decreases in contamination in the recycling stream.
    EPA will not consider responses to this RFI to be proposals for
financial assistance projects or unsolicited requests for financial
assistance. Do not include confidential business information or other
privileged material in responses. Additionally, those submitting
responses are solely responsible for all expenses associated with
response preparation. Information gathered through this RFI may be used
to inform potential strategies for supporting and improving state,
territorial, tribal, and local recycling operations. ORCR welcomes
comments from all stakeholders.

IV. Request for Information

    Over the course of 2022, ORCR will be hosting virtual meetings
across the country with interested stakeholders to inform the
development of the new programs established by the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. This RFI and the other RFIs aim to supplement those
planned consultations and provide all interested individuals and
organizations with the opportunity to share their perspectives on
barriers and opportunities related to consumer recycling education and
outreach to improve waste prevention, increase recycling and reduce
contamination in the recycling stream. Specifically, when thinking
about consumer recycling education and outreach of post-consumer
materials management, include the recovery, reuse, recycle, repair,
and/or refurbishment of MSW and construction and demolition materials,
and composting.
    ORCR is seeking examples of evaluations and evidence-based
messaging and strategies associated with effective communication
campaigns. ORCR is interested in perspectives on the following topics
to inform the Recycling Education and Outreach Program Grant Program
and the Model Recycling Program Toolkit:
     Standardized Terminology: What are some of the
standardized terms and examples that may be used to describe materials
that are accepted by a residential recycling program?
     Information on Residential Recycling: What are other kinds
of standardized information that can be applied across residential
recycling program, taking into consideration the differences in
recycled materials that are accepted by residential recycling programs.
     Education and Outreach Best Practices: EPA is creating a
toolkit to help communities with their education and outreach related
to recycling.
    [cir] Do you have examples of education and outreach programs,
materials or approaches to improve recycling, source reduction,
recycling, recovering, reusing, repairing, or refurbishing that are
associated with demonstrated results?
    [cir] Can you direct us to any specific examples of useful consumer
educational materials or other content that states, tribes, and units
of local government can adapt and use in recycling programs? What were
the associated impacts and costs (financial, staff, and/or other
resources) of the effective programs?
    [cir] For communities without recycling programs, with low
recycling rates, or high contamination rates in the recycling stream
(i.e., plastic bags), what specific education and outreach efforts
would assist communities? What kinds of technical assistance from EPA
(i.e., webinars, tools, strategies, case studies, community-based
messaging, toolkit implementation) would help these communities?
    [cir] What are some model programs with evidence in raising
awareness of available source reduction options to residents for
materials, such as food waste, yard waste, textiles, plastics, etc.
     Training Modules: Do you have examples of training modules
that will enable States and nonprofit organizations to provide
technical assistance to units of local government?
     Consumer Education Materials: Do you have examples of
consumer educational materials that States, Tribes, and units of local
government can adapt and use in recycling programs?
     Grant Effectiveness: Do you have examples of how to
measure the effectiveness of a recycling grant program, including
standardized measures for recycling rates and contamination rates?
     Measuring Effective Communication: What types of messaging
and communication channels (PSAs, door-to-door campaigns, social media,
posters, etc.) have resulted in significant program improvements to
waste diversion, recycling, or composting? Improvements might include
increases in community recycling or composting rates, decreases in
recycling or composting stream contamination, increases in the number
of people participating in the recycling program overall or in a
particular demographic, for example. Additionally, please provide
examples, where possible, of program evaluations and/or evidence-based
messaging results in carrying out effective communication campaigns.
     Identifying Local Conditions: What barriers exist for
consumers to reduce, recycle, recover, reuse, repair, or refurbish in
your state, territory, tribe, local government, or community? What
resources are needed to overcome those barriers? What motivators have
been identified for consumers to reduce, recycle, recover, reuse,
repair, or refurbish in your state, territory, tribe, local government,
or community?
     Costs and Workplans: What are some examples of outreach
and education programs or studies, and associated estimated costs, that
have demonstrated results in improving a recycling program in a
community? What is the cost of an effective one-year education and
outreach behavior change campaign for your state, territory, tribe,
local government, or community? Do your recycling programs or
initiatives target any specific materials, and if so, why?
     Identifying Community Needs for Improvement: For
communities without recycling programs, with low recycling rates, or
high contamination rates in the recycling stream, what specific
education and outreach efforts would assist communities? What kinds of
technical assistance from EPA (i.e., webinars, tools, strategies, case
studies, community-based messaging, toolkit implementation) would help
these communities?
     Formative Evaluation, Pre- and Post-testing, Piloting:
What are examples of recycling education and outreach campaigns that
have conducted formative research, pre- and post-testing, or piloting a
new initiative with an associated evaluation? What skills or knowledge
were needed to effectively conduct the formative evaluation and/or pre-
and post-testing? What could EPA provide in its Model Recycling Program
Toolkit to help communities evaluate their pilots or projects?
     Serving Specific Communities: What are examples of
initiatives or efforts around source reduction, recovery, reuse,
repair, refurbish, or recycling, that focus on supporting overburdened
and underserved communities, rural communities, communities with
environmental justice concerns, and/or Tribes and territories? How are
those programs addressing

overburdened and underserved communities? What additional actions or
investment have overburdened and underserved communities expressed a
need for?
     Current Stakeholder Education and Outreach Programs: Does
your community currently have an outreach and education program to
support and encourage recycling? If so, what are the elements of the
program and how is it funded? If you have a program, how do you
continue to engage the community beyond when the program has been
implemented?
     Other Feedback: What suggestions should EPA consider while
developing the Recycling Education and Outreach grant program and Model
Recycling Program Toolkit? Based on the legislative language,\1\ are
there projects that you believe would be eligible in the Education and
Outreach grant program, but have not been mentioned?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ H.R. 3684--Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Section
70402. Consumer Recycling Education and Outreach Grant Program.
www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Disclaimer and Important Note

    This RFI is issued solely for information, research and planning
purposes and does not constitute a Request for Proposals (RFP) or a
Request for Applications (RFA). Any information obtained as a result of
this RFI is intended to be used by EPA on a non-attribution basis to
support EPA's efforts to develop the Recycling Education and Outreach--
Grant Program and Model Recycling Program Toolkit. This RFI does not
constitute a formal solicitation for proposals or abstracts. Your
response to this notice will be treated as information only. EPA will
review and consider all responses in its development of the grant
program and toolkit that are the subject of this request. This RFI does
not represent any award commitment on the part of EPA, nor does it
obligate EPA to pay for costs incurred in the preparation and
submission of any responses.

    Dated: June 3, 2022.
Carolyn Hoskinson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2022-12458 Filed 6-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 21354]
[DOCID:fr07my09-48]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

April 28, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP09-542-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC submits report to
inform the Commission of penalty revenues it has received in the
quarter ended 3/31/09.
    Filed Date: 04/24/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090424-0123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-543-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC submits amendments
to existing negotiated rate Transmission Rate Schedule FTS Agreements
between etc.
    Filed Date: 04/24/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090424-0124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-544-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 5 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 04/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090427-0154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-545-000.
    Applicants: Black Marlin Pipeline Company.
    Description: Black Marlin Pipeline Company Annual Cash-Out Report.
    Filed Date: 04/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090427-5097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-546-000.
    Applicants: Discovery Gas Transmission LLC.
    Description: Report of Discovery Gas Transmission LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090427-5102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: GP94-2-018.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC's Deferred Tax Refund
Report.
    Filed Date: 04/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090423-5130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday May 6, 2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10485 Filed 5-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


The State of New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions for

the Attainment and Maintenance of the

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

Proposal

Appendix H: Public Participation

June 15, 2007

A public hearing on this proposed SIP revision was held on Wednesday,
August 1, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. at the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, 401 E. State St., 1st Floor, Public Hearing
Room, Trenton, New Jersey.  This hearing was held in accordance with the
provisions of Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7410;
40 C.F.R. §51.102(a)(1), the Air Pollution Control Act (1954), N.J.S.A.
26:2C-1 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14
B-1 et seq.  Written comments relevant to the proposal were accepted
until the close of business, Wednesday, August 8, 2007.  Timely notice
of the hearing was published in six newspapers circulated in New Jersey
at least 30 days prior to the hearing.  In addition, notice of the
hearing appeared in the July 16, 2007 edition of the New Jersey Register
(39 N.J.R. 2659(a)).  Notices of the hearing and of the availability of
the SIP revision were also emailed or mailed to over 1,000 interested
parties.  Additional notification consisted of posting a copy of the
proposal on NJDEP’s website and using online resources to help the
public access NJDEP’s website; providing a copy to the USEPA Region 2
and several northeastern states; and mailing the proposal to nineteen
public libraries throughout the State, NJDEP’s four regional offices,
and its public access center.

Attachment 1 contains the notice announcing the availability of the
proposed SIP revision and the hearing.

Attachment 2 contains the documentation of the notices that appeared in
the newspapers and the New Jersey Register.

Attachment 3 contains the response to comment document.

The State of New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions for

the Attainment and Maintenance of the

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

Proposal

Appendix H: Public Participation

Attachment 1: Notice of Availability

June 15, 2007

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND AVAILABILITY:

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and
Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 8-Hour
Ozone Attainment Demonstration Proposal

Take notice that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(Department) is proposing a revision to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to meet the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS).  A copy of the proposal has been forwarded to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) by June 15, 2007.

The core of this proposed SIP revision is the State’s demonstration
that its two multi-state 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas will attain
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by their mandatory attainment date of June 15,
2010.  The remainder of the proposed SIP revision addresses the other
mandatory SIP elements for 8-hour ozone and other related issues (with
the exception of a Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT)
analysis, which the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) proposed on February 2, 2007 and will submit as final to the
USEPA separately).  Specifically, the primary components of the SIP
revision proposal are:

A plausible demonstration that the two multi-state nonattainment areas,
associated with the New York City and Philadelphia Metropolitan areas,
associated with New Jersey will attain the 8-hour ozone health standard
by their mandatory attainment date of June 15, 2010.  This demonstration
incorporates the latest scientific information from the University of
Maryland, and is reliant upon New Jersey and the rest of the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC) states honoring their commitments to
implement the “beyond on the way” control measures contained in the
regional 2009 attainment modeling.

A demonstration that the State will more than meet its Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP) targets for both 2008 (RFP milestone) and 2009
(attainment) using the same control measures applied in the State’s
2009 attainment demonstration.

A Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) analysis which
demonstrates that there are no other RACM that would advance the
nonattainment areas’ attainment date by one year.

Contingency measures for the 2008 RFP milestone and the 2009 attainment
milestone.

Proposed onroad vehicle emission budgets for use by the Metropolitan
Planning Organizations to ensure their plans and programs are in
conformance with the SIP.

Proposed general conformity emission budgets for use by McGuire Air
Force Base and Lakehurst Naval Air Station to ensure that emissions from
their operations also conform to the requirements of the SIP.

A request that the USEPA make a finding that three (3) of New Jersey’s
four (4) associated 1-hour nonattainment areas are meeting the 1-hour
standard.

A request that the USEPA, in reviewing the attainment demonstrations and
all other SIP revisions from other states, take into consideration their
impact on New Jersey’s attainment obligations, and insure that other
states are doing all they can to help the multi-state nonattainment
areas attain as soon as practicable.

A copy of the proposal is now available for inspection, as described
more fully below.  A public hearing concerning the Department’s
proposal/proposed SIP revision is scheduled as follows:

	Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.

The NJ Department of Environmental Protection Building, Public Hearing
Room (1st Floor)

401 East State Street

Trenton, New Jersey

This hearing is being held in accordance with the provisions of Section
110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410.  Written comments may
be submitted by close of business August 8, 2007, to:

NJ Department of Environmental Protection

Alice A. Previte, Esq.

Attn:  DEP Docket # 14-07-06

Office of Legal Affairs

P.O. Box 402

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0402

The following are options for obtaining a copy of the proposed SIP
revision:

1. Visit the Department's website at:   HYPERLINK
http://www.nj.gov/dep/ , where Air Quality Management rules, proposals,
adoptions and SIP revisions are available.  The Department’s proposed
SIP revision can be viewed or downloaded from the following url:
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/sip/siprevs.htm

2. Go and inspect the proposal/proposed SIP revision during normal
office hours at any of these locations:

DEP Public Information Center		DEP Bureau of Enforcement

401 E. State Street, 1st Floor		Northern Region

Trenton, New Jersey 08625		1259 Route 46 East

					Parsippany, N.J. 07054-4191

DEP Bureau of Enforcement

Central Region				DEP Bureau of Enforcement

Horizon Center, P.O. Box 407		Southern Region

Robbinsville, N.J. 08625-0407		2 Riverside Drive, Suite 201

					Camden, N.J. 08103

DEP Bureau of Enforcement

Metropolitan Region			Atlantic City Public Library

2 Babcock Place			1 North Tennessee Avenue

West Orange, N.J. 07052-5504		Atlantic City, N.J. 08401

Trenton Public Library			Penns Grove/Carney’s Point Public Library
Association

120 Academy Street			222 South Broad Street

Trenton, N.J.  08608			Penns Grove, N.J. 08069

Newark Public Library			New Brunswick Free Public Library

5 Washington Street			60 Livingston Avenue

P.O. Box 630				New Brunswick, N.J.  08901

Newark, N.J.  07102-0630

					Ms. Ellen Calhoun

Burlington County Library		Library of Science and Medicine, Rutgers
University

3 Pioneer Blvd. and Woodlane Rd.	P.O. Box 1029

Mt. Holly, N.J. 08060			Piscataway, N.J. 08855-1029

Joint Free Public Library		Freehold Public Library

Morristown & Morris County		28½ East Main Street

1 Miller Road				Freehold, N.J. 07728

Morristown,  N.J. 07960

					Camden Free Public Library

Burlington City Library			418 Fredericks Street

23 West Union Street			Camden, N.J. 08103

Burlington, N.J. 08016

					Somerville Public Library

Perth Amboy Public Library		35 W. End Avenue

193 Jefferson Street			Somerville, N.J. 08876

Perth Amboy, N.J. 08861

Toms River Public Library

101 Washington Street

Toms River, N.J. 08753-7625

4.  Request a copy of the proposal/proposed SIP revision by calling
Willa Williams at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by e-mailing her at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mailing or faxing the attached
form to her as indicated on the form.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS:  For more information about the Department’s
SIP proposal, please call our Bureau of Air Quality Planning at (609)
292-6722.

MAIL OR FAX THIS SIP PROPOSAL REQUEST FORM TO:

Ms. Willa Williams

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Air Quality Planning

401 E.  State Street, 7th Floor

P.O. Box 418

Trenton, N.J. 08625-0418

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Please send me a copy of the Department's Proposed State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment Maintenance of the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard, 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

Name:

Organization:

Address:

Telephone:

Please remove my name from the Air Quality SIP and rulemaking mailing
list.

Please consider subscribing to our Air Rules Listserv to receive e-mail
updates of all proposed Department rulemaking relating to air pollution
control and revisions to New Jersey's State Implementation Plan.
Signing up is easy through our AIRRULES LISTSERV Info Page at
HYPERLINK  http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/airrules.html .

The State of New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions for

the Attainment and Maintenance of the

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

Proposal

Appendix H: Public Participation

Attachment 2: Documentation of the Notices that Appeared in the
Newspapers and the New Jersey Register

June 15, 2007

This attachment includes the documentation of the notices that appeared
in the newspapers and the New Jersey Register.  The documentation from
the newspapers is only available in hardcopy format.

The State of New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions for

the Attainment and Maintenance of the

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

Proposal

Appendix H: Public Participation

Attachment 3: Response to Comment Document

June 15, 2007As a result of the hearing and comment period, several
comments were received on the proposed State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision.  The following is a summary of those comments, and the
State’s responses to those comments.  After each comment is the name
of the commenter(s) and their affiliation(s) in bold.

Comment:  Several commenters thanked the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) for hosting productive stakeholder
meetings to discuss the rulemakings prior to their inclusion in the SIP,
particularly those regarding upcoming petroleum storage tank Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) rules and refinery RACT rules.
(Tony Russo, Chemistry Council of New Jersey (CCNJ), John Maxwell, New
Jersey Petroleum Council (NJPC), and David H. Brogan, New Jersey
Business and Industry Association, (NJBIA))

Response:  The NJDEP appreciates the commenters’ recognition of its
outreach and coordination efforts and intends to continue this open
dialogue.

Comment:  Several commenters noted that it was clear from the data
presented in the proposed SIP revision that the NJDEP has made great
strides toward achieving ozone attainment in New Jersey; their efforts
should be commended.  (Tony Russo, CCNJ, John Maxwell, NJPC, Michael A.
Egenton, New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce, and David H. Brogan,
NJBIA)

Response:  The NJDEP appreciates the commenters’ recognition of its
efforts to attain and maintain the previous and current ozone
health-based standards.  New Jersey, as well as its neighboring states,
has implemented numerous control strategies over time that have lowered
ozone concentrations throughout the region.  The benefits from the
implementation of these control measures are demonstrated by the fact
that three of New Jersey’s four 1-hour ozone multi-state nonattainment
areas are currently meeting that standard.  However, ozone continues to
be New Jersey’s most pervasive air quality problem, with greater
health effects at lower levels than previously understood, requiring the
states throughout the Ozone Transport Region and beyond to do more to
reduce the emissions of ozone precursors.

Comment:  One commenter stated that the partnership with the NJDEP at
the early stages of regulatory development afforded regulated entities
the opportunity to anticipate and develop regulatory strategies that
will successfully achieve all of the stakeholders’ objectives.
Although all of the issues have not been resolved, the commenter
believed that the regulations that are borne out of the collaborative
effort currently underway will best serve the many concerned interests.
(Daniel Cunningham, Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) Services
Corporation)

Response:  The NJDEP appreciates the commenter’s recognition of
NJDEP’s efforts to create an open and transparent control measure
implementation process, and agrees that this type of process will result
in better and more efficient regulations overall.

Comment:  Several commenters expressed the desire for more discussion
prior to the NJDEP proposing rulemaking to implement all the proposed
control measures.  Some commenters stated that final rules that account
for stakeholder input would be more successful in meeting the NJDEP’s
goal of timely attainment of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) than rules that do not employ all of the technical
resources available to the NJDEP.  (Tony Russo, CCNJ, John Maxwell,
NJPC, and David H. Brogan, NJBIA)

Response:  Over the last several years there has been unprecedented
outreach to and discussion with both the general public and regulated
communities regarding control measure selection and implementation, not
only at a State level, but on a regional level as well.  Recognizing the
need to identify new control measures for many types of sources to
attain the more stringent health-based ozone and fine particulate NAAQS,
New Jersey launched its Reducing Air Pollution Together Initiative on
June 29, 2005, with a large scale public workshop.  As a follow-up to
that Workshop, the NJDEP formed six workgroups that included
representatives from the NJDEP and other state agencies, the regulated
community, public interest groups, and other interested parties.  These
workgroups collaborated during the summer of 2005, to identify and
recommend control strategies for possible inclusion in upcoming SIPs.
The NJDEP then posted sixty white papers, written by the NJDEP staff, on
the most promising control measures for public feedback.  On May 17,
2006, the NJDEP invited interested and affected parties to a follow-up
workshop to share preliminary regulatory plans.

For their part, both the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and the
Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA), each of which
include New Jersey as a member, reached out to stakeholders to solicit
their input on control measures under regional consideration.  The OTC
hosted four public meetings (held on 10/5/05, 1/24/06, 4/5-6/06, and
11/2/06) to discuss controls under consideration by their member states,
while MARAMA provided stakeholders over two months to comment on their
Technical Support Document (TSD) and model rules.

Once control measures had been identified and selected (on both a State
and regional level), the NJDEP met individually with many of the
regulated industries to discuss potential control options, gather
additional data, and refine the draft regulations.  The NJDEP found
these discussions successful in helping to focus the rulemaking efforts,
and make those efforts more efficient and effective.  The NJDEP
continues this dialogue for several source categories.

In addition to these informal discussions, the industry and other
interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed
rulemakings, as required by the New Jersey Administrative Procedures Act
and the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act.  We appreciate the input
to date and look forward to further constructive input by all parties.

Comment:  One commenter was concerned with the NJDEP’s intention to
propose a rule for petroleum storage tanks in New Jersey.  He stated
that the reductions were not included in the modeling to demonstrate
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in New Jersey for 2009.  He stated
that the implementation schedule for the rule, with proposal by November
2007 and controls required by 2009/2010, would create significant
operational impacts.  He stated that, due to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) new emission estimation
procedures for floating roof tanks, there was not yet a clear
understanding of the emissions inventory to properly calculate the
benefits for the rule.  The commenter requested that the State refrain
from implementing the rule until further discussion with the
stakeholders.  A second commenter agreed with these comments regarding
the petroleum storage tank rule. (Tony Russo, CCNJ and John Maxwell,
NJPC)

Response:  Regional photochemical modeling is complex and time
consuming.  In order to complete the necessary modeling runs and analyze
the modeling results for inclusion in the SIPs in time to meet the
Federal deadline for SIP submittals, decisions on what control measures
to include in those runs were made in the fall of 2006.  New Jersey had
not completed its internal control technology evaluation by that time,
preventing New Jersey from recommending several New Jersey-specific
measures (for example, the petroleum storage tank effort) for inclusion
in the regional modeling runs.  New Jersey’s evaluation showed that
this, and other measures could result in emission reductions prior to
the 2010 attainment date, even though these benefits were not
incorporated into the regional modeling demonstration.  To capture these
non-modeled benefits, and provide the USEPA and New Jersey citizens with
greater certainty that New Jersey’s multi-state 8-hour nonattainment
areas would reach the NAAQS by 2010, the NJDEP did off-model
calculations to estimate the potential additional benefits from these
non-modeled measures.  These benefit determinations were based on the
expected implementation schedule for the rulemaking plans at the time of
the proposed SIP revision.

After consideration of input from the regulated community, the State has
subsequently reconsidered the implementation schedules for some of its
non-modeled control measures, including petroleum storage tanks, and has
adjusted the expected emission reductions for 2009 and beyond
accordingly.  To minimize operational disruption for petroleum storage
tank modifications that require tanks to be taken out of service, the
rule is expected to propose an implementation schedule over ten years,
but no later than 2019, to coincide with the normal tank inspection
schedule for out of service repairs.  Based on this new planned
implementation schedule, the NJDEP revised the 2009 emission reduction
estimates for this measure from 6.0 tons per day (tpd) (referenced in
Chapters 5 and 8, and Appendix D13 of the SIP revision) to 2.25 tpd
Statewide in 2009 and 2.73 tpd Statewide in 2010.  The explanation of
the NJDEP’s “off-model” calculations used to estimate benefits
from petroleum storage tanks, as well as other control measures not
included in the 2009 attainment modeling, have been revised in Appendix
D13 and its attachments.  These estimates may be refined further as part
of the State’s rule proposal, expected by the end of 2007.  In
addition to providing greater certainty that the State will attain the
health standards on time, these non-modeled measures, including proposed
new rules for petroleum storage tanks, are relied upon as contingency
measures, in the event that either of New Jersey’s multi-state
nonattainment areas do not meet the required attainment date.

With respect to emissions inventory calculation procedures, the
commenter is referring specifically to emissions from landing losses.
Calculating landing losses and including those emissions in emission
statements are the responsibility of persons operating floating roof
storage tanks.  Maximum expected losses can be readily calculated using
scientific principles.  Also, the American Petroleum Institute (API), in
2005, published a method to estimate actual losses.  Furthermore,
landing losses have been addressed in California since 1987 (see South
Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1149 (Storage Tank
Cleaning and Degassing), last amended July 15, 1995).

Comment:  Several commenters stated that it was communicated in the
NJDEP’s rulemaking stakeholder meetings that significant control
measures would not be in place by 2009 and therefore, the commenters
stated that the proposed SIP should not allude to any control measures
that could not be in place by 2009 (e.g., Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units
(FCCU) retrofits, covers for external floating roof tanks, vapor
recovery systems, or any tank retrofits).  Additionally, one commenter
noted that a commitment to a performance or emission standard that will
not be in place until 2015 for High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) units, is
premature for a proposed SIP revision that requires an attainment
demonstration by 2010.  This commenter stated that there is time for
continued collaboration among these entities to evaluate oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) reduction strategies for HEDD units that meet the shared
and acknowledged goals of NJDEP, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
(NJBPU), and PSEG with respect to energy reliability and environmental
protection.  This same commenter also stated that the ozone attainment
deadline should be a factor in identifying emission control strategies
for any category of sources, such as boilers.  The commenter stated that
the NJDEP should commit to differentiating between new and existing
sources in its emission reduction strategies, and agree that the
timetable for existing sources will likely post-date the 2009 ozone
season on which the 2010 ozone attainment demonstration will be based.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to propose, within the current proposed SIP
revision, control measures that will not be in place by 2009. (Tony
Russo, CCNJ, John Maxwell, NJPC, Michael A. Egenton, New Jersey State
Chamber of Commerce, David H. Brogan, NJBIA, and Daniel Cunningham, PSEG
Services Corporation))

Response:  All of the measures referenced by the commenters (i.e., FCCU
retrofits, covers for external floating roof tanks, vapor recovery
systems, tank retrofits, and HEDD) are expected to have phased in
implementation schedules that would provide for some emission reductions
by 2009.  The proposed ozone SIP also includes control measures
(including those listed by the commenter) with partial or full
implementation dates beyond the current 8-hour ozone attainment date of
2010.  Including these longer term measures as part of the State’s
overall plan for addressing ozone precursor emissions is necessary and
appropriate for the following reasons:

To provide public health protection, especially in view of health
scientists’ and the USEPA scientists’ recommendation for a more
protective ozone NAAQS;

To provide the USEPA and New Jersey citizens with greater certainty that
New Jersey’s multi-state 8-hour nonattainment areas would reach the
NAAQS by 2010;

To provide additional reductions, which would be relied upon post 2009
should the state not attain by 2010;

To ensure that the areas will not only meet the existing NAAQS by the
required attainment date, but that they will maintain that standard in
the future;

To provide the regulated community with certainty and time to identify
the necessary funding to install control equipment, modify their
products or usage patterns, and/or take other actions to implement
pollution prevention strategies; and,

To ensure that transported emissions from New Jersey are not
significantly impacting any other area’s ability to attain or maintain
the current, or any future, health-based standard.

With respect to this list of reasons to continue reasonable emission
reductions beyond 2009, the health concerns of ozone exposure at levels
below that current standard are most important.  Therefore, New Jersey
is proposing measures with respect to ozone control in this proposed SIP
revision under its authority in the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act
to regulate air pollution to protect public health.

Comment:  Several commenters stated that the MARAMA model rules for
refineries do little more than apply the facility-specific refinery
initiatives on an industry-wide basis, with minimal additional
environmental benefit, but at a significant cost.  According to the
commenters, both the New Jersey stakeholders and MARAMA agreed that
there are almost no incremental emission reductions that will occur by
2009, as a result of imposing the MARAMA model rules as RACT on top of
the current or pending refinery enforcement initiatives.  The commenters
also stated that the MARAMA model rules will not help New Jersey meet
its attainment goals and therefore should not become New Jersey RACT
rules.  (Tony Russo, CCNJ, John Maxwell, NJPC, Michael A. Egenton, New
Jersey State Chamber of Commerce, and David H. Brogan, NJBIA)

Response:  See response to Comment # 6.  Also, 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(2)
(Section 182(b)(2)) of the Clean Air Act requires the imposition of RACT
controls for all volatile organic compound (VOC) source categories
covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) and for all other major
stationary sources of VOC located within certain nonattainment areas
with or without an area-specific demonstration by the State that the
area needed the controls for attainment as expeditiously as practicable.
 A similar interpretation can be made for 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(f) (Section
182(f)) of the Clean Air Act), requiring the imposition of RACT controls
on all major sources of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) where the plan
provisions already require RACT controls for major sources of VOCs.  In
other words, the USEPA requires that a stationary source of the
requisite type and size be subject to both NOx and VOC RACT.  The RACT
requirements are meant to ensure that states review source category
controls, and update them to implement what is “reasonable,” in
addition to any other requirements to attain the NAAQS.  Therefore, even
if the implementation of the refinery rulemaking is not required for the
attainment of the current 8-hour ozone NAAQS, this does not exclude
these measures from being implemented as RACT or for other air quality
improvement purposes.  States may be more stringent than minimum USEPA
requirements.  New Jersey’s ozone SIP has multiple purposes beyond
attainment of the existing ozone NAAQS.  This SIP will also make
progress toward the more stringent ozone NAAQS which the USEPA has
proposed and most importantly will reduce ozone levels to obtain health
benefits which are recognized by health experts from achieving ozone
levels below the current ozone NAAQS.  If by complying with the refinery
enforcement settlements, a facility also satisfies the requirements in
the State’s pending RACT refinery rulemaking, then no additional
control would be needed.  Furthermore, if the refinery enforcement
settlements are reasonable, it is appropriate to presume those measures
are reasonable for all similar sources, unless site specific evaluations
indicate otherwise.  There are provisions for site specific evaluations
of emission limits in both New Jersey’s NOx and VOC rules at New
Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:27-19.13 and 7:27-16.17,
respectively.  These provisions can result in Alternative Emission
Limits (AELs) and are expected to continue to be available for the
refinery limits being proposed.

As with the calculated benefits of the Petroleum Storage Tanks control
measures, Appendix D13 of the proposed SIP revision explains the
NJDEP’s “off-model” calculations used to estimate benefits from
the refinery measures.  These estimates show significant tons per day
reductions in NOx, by 2009.  Furthermore, additional reductions in VOC
and NOx are anticipated from the implementation of these rules
post-2009.  These added benefits will help the State maintain the
current 8-hour standard, while continuing to reduce ozone emissions to
protect public health and in anticipation of the adoption of a more
stringent health-based standard in the near future (see Response to
Comment # 6).

Comment:  Commenters stated that neither the MARAMA model rules nor the
NJDEP’s white paper on petroleum storage tank emission controls were
based on accurate, New Jersey-specific emission inventories and that
good data are the foundation for rulemaking that targets appropriate
subcategories of sources.  These commenters further stated that of all
the long term VOC reduction measures being considered for RACT, the
control of VOC emissions from floating roof tank roof landing requires
additional due process before RACT regulations can be written.  Specific
concerns regarding the floating roof tank landing proposal included the
emission quantification method, which was published nine months ago
(thus, inventory information is still being developed), any control
measures will not be implemented in time to help achieve attainment by
2010, and economic impacts are not understood well enough to support
rulemaking.  One commenter requested that the NJDEP conduct a more
thorough assessment, based on New Jersey specific data, prior to
proceeding with the rulemaking process.  All the commenters requested
that the NJDEP delay RACT rules for these VOC control measures for at
least one year.  (Tony Russo, CCNJ, John Maxwell, NJPC, Michael A.
Egenton, New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce, and David H. Brogan,
NJBIA)

Response:  See Response to Comment # 7.  Also, contrary to the
commenters’ assertions, all of NJDEP white papers, as well as the
MARAMA model rule effort, were based on New Jersey-specific inventories
and data available at the time these materials were developed.  With
respect to the white papers, the NJDEP reviewed its own 2002 emissions
inventory as the basis for focusing its analysis.  This inventory
includes actual emissions data reported by major stationary sources
located in New Jersey through the Emission Statement program.  With
respect to the MARAMA model rule effort, the states relied upon the 2002
and 2009 regional modeling inventories, both of which contained data and
inputs from New Jersey.  Also, the State reviewed emission data, rules,
and other information from other states to ensure it was focused on
appropriate source categories.  For example, in developing regulations
for petroleum storage tanks, the NJDEP reviewed the control efforts of
California and Texas.  Finally, all of NJDEP rule proposals take into
consideration implementation timing and impact on the regulated
community, and the ozone rules proposal is no exception.  The NJDEP met
with the regulated community prior to the proposal of this SIP revision,
and has continued meeting with industry prior to proposing the ozone
rules in order to more fully understand and address their concerns.

The State not only conducted its own internal analysis, but also
participated in a Regional control measure analysis, and in many cases
these two independent efforts identified the same source categories for
future controls.  The identification of these source categories for
control was further supported by the recommendations made to New Jersey
by the State’s control measure workgroups through its Reducing Air
Pollution Together Initiative, which again identified sources for
control which overlapped with those already identified through the State
internal and regional efforts.  Based on these analyses, the NJDEP is
confident that it has targeted the most appropriate subcategories of
sources for its rulemaking efforts.

With respect to data on petroleum storage tank emissions, the NJDEP
understands that the current emission inventory data reveal greater
emissions than previously known, particularly with respect to the data
on floating roof landing emissions.  This is because many facilities
have either not reported their emissions from roof landings or
considerably underreported these emissions.  This underestimation of
emissions data has skewed historically pertinent data.  In November of
2006, the USEPA formally adopted a methodology for calculating roof
landing emissions as an amendment to Air Pollutant (AP)-42.  The AP-42
methodology is based on an API Methodology that was issued in draft form
in 1997 and finalized in 2005.  Hence, industry has recognized this
failure to adequately include roof landing emissions for at least 8
years.  The USEPA publication of a methodology in AP-42 is not a
pre-requisite for reporting emissions.  See N.J.A.C. 7:27-21 where AP-42
is listed as one of several means to estimate emissions.

Based on the emissions reported to the NJDEP by companies using the API
methodology in 2006, the NJDEP estimates that the emissions from
floating roof landings are in the thousands of tons per year statewide.
Based on this estimation, the NJDEP is confident that this rulemaking
should proceed on the same schedule as the other control measures, and
that delay is not necessary or appropriate.  The sooner this rule is
proposed and adopted by the NJDEP, the sooner facilities can implement
the necessary controls to reduce ozone.  To further support this
rulemaking effort, the NJDEP, as part of its review of the 2007 emission
statements, is sending deficiency letters to any facility that fails to
fully report their petroleum storage tank emissions, including those
emissions from roof landings.  So far, several facilities have addressed
this identified deficiency in its resubmitted emission statement, and
reported over 1,200 additional tons of emissions from roof landings.
The NJDEP expects more emissions to be reported for petroleum storage
tanks as facilities correct their emission statements and that
facilities will take steps to reduce and minimize those emissions
immediately, independent of rulemaking.  In the meantime, it is not
appropriate to delay rulemaking because of industry failure to fully
report significant emissions.  If anything, the increased emissions are
added reason to proceed with, not delay, rules to lower those emissions.

Comment:  Some commenters noted that the NJDEP appropriately factored in
the real emission reductions from the refinery enforcement initiative
into its 2010 attainment modeling.  (Tony Russo, CCNJ, John Maxwell, New
Jersey NJPC, Michael A. Egenton, New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce,
and David H. Brogan, NJBIA)

Response:  The commenter is correct that the 2010 attainment modeling
included the benefits expected by 2010 from various USEPA, state, and
local Consent Decrees negotiated, or in the process of being negotiated,
with the major refineries on the East Coast to elicit emission
reductions from five major refinery processes.  The processes are FCCUs
and Fluid Coking Units (FCUs), Process Heaters and Boilers, Flare Gas
Recovery, Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR), and Benzene/Wastewater.  The
New Jersey refineries impacted by the settlements include Sunoco, Conoco
Phillips, Valero, and Citgo Asphalt Refining Company.

While these Consent Decrees will result in significant emission
reductions from these facilities, they do not preclude the State from
implementing more stringent controls on those same sources by
rulemaking.  The very nature of Consent Decrees does not ensure that the
remedies are RACT (that is, the implementation of all that is
“reasonable” regardless of its need for attainment).  Instead,
Consent Decrees are negotiated agreements that require neither an
extensive technology review nor any ambient air quality modeling.  Such
agreements include a weighing of the litigation risk by both sides,
which factors in the evidence concerning the alleged violations.  No
Consent Decree could prevent the adoption of rules for other purposes,
and these Consent Decrees do not.  The purpose of the Consent Decrees
was settlement of alleged past New Source Review (NSR) violations, while
the purpose of the ozone SIP and rules is to satisfy current Clean Air
Act requirements and air quality needs.  In addition, some of the
federal consent decrees reflect a “company wide” settlement that may
or may not include emission reductions from equipment at New Jersey
facilities.

Comment:  One commenter concurred with the NJDEP that the best approach
to achieving attainment with the ozone NAAQS in New Jersey is through
the multiple regional efforts that are currently in place, or soon to be
implemented, that will achieve real reductions in NOx emissions,
especially during the ozone season (i.e., NOx budget, Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), beyond CAIR (OTC initiative), etc.).  However,
the commenter encourages the State to continue to press sources upwind
from New Jersey, especially outside the OTC region, to reduce emissions
beyond its currently anticipated on-the-books and on-the-way measures.
The commenter stated that this is especially important in light of
current recommendations by medical and science professionals and as the
USEPA considers making the health standards more stringent.  (Daniel
Cunningham, PSEG Services Corporation)

Response:  The NJDEP agrees with the comment that regional NOx reduction
programs, such as the NOx budget program, have been extremely successful
in reducing overall ozone emissions, and should be continued.  The NJDEP
is working with the OTC, Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU), and other regional planning organizations (RPOs) to identify
and implement other broad regional emission control programs.  The NJDEP
also acknowledges a local component to its ozone and PM problems that
requires more direct attention.  Therefore, it is vital that the NJDEP
review its existing rules and other existing and potential sources to
ensure that all reasonable action is being taken to attain and maintain
the health-based standards.  The NJDEP also agrees with the commenter
that given the significance of the regional component to both its ozone
and fine particle nonattainment (as well as regional haze), it is
appropriate that the other states in and upwind of the OTR take action
to improve requirements that are at least as stringent as New Jersey’s
requirements.  For this reason, New Jersey included as part of this
proposed SIP revision a request to the USEPA that in reviewing the
attainment demonstrations and all other SIP revisions from other states,
the USEPA take into consideration their impact on New Jersey’s
attainment obligations and ensure that upwind states are doing all that
is needed to bring New Jersey’s associated multi-state nonattainment
areas into attainment as soon as practicable.

Comment:  PSEG Fossil commented on potential control measures targeting
HEDD electric generating units (EGUs).  These HEDD units are used not
only to provide electricity during peak demand in New Jersey, but also
serve to provide quick-start capabilities that assist in grid
stabilization and congestion management.  The commenter commended the
NJDEP for identifying the most important goals of the Energy Master Plan
(EMP) in its proposed SIP revision and stated that any control measures
associated with HEDD must likewise meet the stated goals of the EMP and
must: 1) allow for secure, safe, and reasonably priced energy supplies
and services, 2) allow for economic growth and development, and 3)
consider environmental protection and impact.  (Daniel Cunningham, PSEG
Services Corporation)

Response:  The NJDEP fully supports the creation and implementation of
the EMP, has been active in its development, and will continue to
participate in its implementation.  The issues surrounding the
development of HEDD rules have been an integral part of the NJDEP’s
EMP discussions.  The NJDEP’s goal is to bring about needed emission
reductions to benefit the environment and public health without causing
undue cost or disruption of electricity supply.

Comment:  One commenter stated that the proposed SIP revision failed to
include potential control measure options for HEDD units, including
those mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the OTC
states such as regulatory caps, State/generator HEDD partnerships
agreements, energy efficiency programs, demand response programs,
controls for beyond-the-meter generators, and/or adjustment of the NOx
retirement ratio to provide reductions on HEDDs.  He specifically
recommended that the NJDEP continue to work with stakeholders to explore
a performance or emission standard that addresses HEDD units in a
collective manner consistent with a cap-type regulation.  (Daniel
Cunningham, PSEG Services Corporation)

Response:  The OTC MOU addresses the commitment the states have made to
secure emission reductions from HEDD units beginning with the 2009 ozone
season.  During the regional stakeholder process, these were referred to
as short-term reduction goals.  As stated by the commenter, the OTC MOU
lists several mechanisms identified during the stakeholder process for
the short-term reduction goals.  The OTC MOU does not limit the
potential reduction strategies to those listed in the document, and each
state may select a strategy or combination of strategies to meet their
2009 reduction goals.  As stated in the SIP, “…power generators in
New Jersey will be responsible for securing these [2009] reductions and
will be required to submit a plan on how they will reduce NOx.  The
generators will have flexibility in securing the 2009 reductions.”
Although performance standards are one of the mechanisms listed in the
OTC MOU that states can choose for meeting their 2009 reduction goal,
New Jersey has chosen not to establish performance standards in the 2009
timeframe to provide more flexibility for short-term measures.  The
specific mechanisms to be included in New Jersey’s 2009 HEDD unit
reduction program will be included in New Jersey’s HEDD rule and will
be consistent with the OTC MOU.

For the long-term, the OTC MOU states that “states will continue to
work to establish long-term standards and programs to address emissions
on HEDDs…”  Although some mechanisms to meet the short-term 2009
reduction goals, for example energy efficiency, are also included in the
long-term goals to address emissions on HEDD, the long-term vision for
addressing HEDD is “development of long-term performance standards
that will ensure reliable, clean future generation.”  Given the
magnitude of NOx emissions from HEDD units on high electrical demand
days and their impact on public health, New Jersey has decided to move
forward to establish long-term performance standards for HEDD units for
2015.

With respect to the commenter’s specific request that the NJDEP
explore a performance or emission standard that addresses HEDD units in
a collective manner consistent with a cap-type regulation, the NJDEP
agrees that cap-and-trade programs have been successful in reducing NOx
emissions, not only in New Jersey but regionally, during the ozone
season.  However, as the stakeholders learned during the HEDD regional
process, “using a cap and trade mechanism alone to provide sufficient
financial incentives to cause the clean up of HEDD units would need an
18:1 retirement ratio and such a strategy would consume 74% of all
available CAIR allowances for 12 HEDD days.”  Therefore, a
cap-and-trade program does not appear practical for addressing daily or
hourly emissions.  Also, performance standards and cap-and-trade
programs are compatible.

Comment:  The proposed SIP revision refers to a first step in the HEDD
regulatory process in which generators can submit a plan for meeting the
2009 reduction goals.  One commenter stated that these plans should
allow innovative strategies for New Jersey to meet the 19.8 tpd NOx
reduction commitment in the MOU, and that likewise align with the EMP
goals.  (Daniel Cunningham, PSEG Services Corporation)

Response:  In consideration of the fact that the short-term goals for
the HEDD program need to obtain emission reductions from this source
category by 2009, the NJDEP intends to provide significant flexibility
to the generators by allowing them to submit their own plans for meeting
those goals in a way which would result in the most efficient and
effective means of control.  The NJDEP agrees with the commenter that
this flexibility could result in more innovation from the regulated
community to meet the short-term goal, and that given the timing of the
Energy Master Plan (EMP) (draft scheduled to be released in the fall of
2007), will allow for these reductions to occur in time to benefit that
effort as well.

Comment:  A commenter agreed with the NJDEP that the modeling may have
underestimated the benefits from regional NOx controls.  The commenter
said that recognizing the modeling’s shortcomings is key to developing
strategies for further reductions in ozone precursors and is further
support that certain pollutants such as NOx are best regulated on a
regional basis.  (Daniel Cunningham, PSEG Services Corporation)

Response:  The NJDEP noted in its proposed SIP revision that “[w]hile
the USEPA attainment demonstration guidance emphasizes a single design
value from a single modeling simulation as the core of any attainment
demonstration, it also supports, in conjunction with the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee (CAAAC), those states utilizing a multi-analysis
approach to their 8-hour ozone attainment demonstrations.  This is
because the principles of atmospheric science acknowledge that, in using
models, all of the uncertainties and biases need to be considered.”
The NJDEP agrees with the commenter that a broader analysis than one
limited to reliance on photochemical modeling results is needed to more
accurately demonstrate attainment.

Comment:  A commenter said that, given that the Energy Master Plan (EMP)
initiatives will be rolled out during the 2008-2010 timeframe, any
rulemakings and policies related to clean distributed generation and
energy efficiency that place less demand on HEDD units should be
evaluated prior to committing to traditional emission standards for HEDD
units.  The commenter committed to continue dialogue and
information-sharing with the NJDEP to work toward a flexible,
market-based solution to control measures for HEDD units.  (Daniel
Cunningham, PSEG Services Corporation)

Response:  The EMP is expected to support measures that reduce the
demand for electricity, including the demand for electricity on high
electrical demand days.  This should result in less demand for HEDD
units which will be consistent with both the 2009 and 2015 strategies to
reduce NOx because the generation of electricity using these higher
emitting units could be reduced or eliminated.  As noted in the response
to Comment #13, given the magnitude of increased emissions from HEDD
units on high electrical demand days and their impact on public health,
it is necessary to move forward and establish longer term emission
standards which will ensure clean future generation.

Comment:  The NJDEP’s RFP demonstration highlighted the significant
contribution of onroad and nonroad mobile sources to the overall NOx
emissions in New Jersey.  One commenter stated that while New Jersey’s
efforts to reduce these emissions should be applauded, mobile sources
will still account for over 80 percent of the total annual NOx emissions
in the State by 2008.  He said that the most substantial reductions, and
air quality benefits, should be made from mobile sources.  (Daniel
Cunningham, PSEG Services Corporation)

Response:  The NJDEP is aware of the significant contribution mobile
sources make to New Jersey’s overall emissions inventory.  It is for
this reason that the NJDEP has implemented mobile source programs such
as its inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs for both gasoline and
diesel vehicles and requirements for Low Emission Vehicles (LEVs).  New
Jersey is currently working to update and enhance both its gasoline and
diesel I/M programs, and is one of the most active states in
implementing diesel initiatives, including enhanced idling regulations
and retrofit requirements.  In addition, New Jersey and the rest of the
OTC states recommended that the USEPA propose new nonroad spark-ignition
engine standards comparable to California’s standards (which the
states were pre-empted from adopting), which the USEPA did this past
May.  The NJDEP encourages the stationary source community to continue
to be a stakeholder in mobile source initiatives, both at the state and
national level.  One of the State’s most effective ozone control
strategies was the NOx budget program, which demonstrated the
significant impact of stationary sources on air quality.  The HEDD units
are particularly important for ozone reductions because they operate
disproportionately on high ozone days, frequently doubling the NOx
emissions from electric generating units on high ozone days.

20)	Comment:  One commenter noted that the 2008 and 2009 ozone budgets
for the North Jersey Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) of the
North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) were developed
using the newly developed model (NJRTME).  However, due to a time
constraint, the model version available at the time of the analysis was
not the final version.  The model has subsequently gone through further
refinements to achieve better validation results.  Therefore, he
recommended that the NJDEP revisit the ozone budgets when the final
model becomes available and amend the budgets, if necessary.  (James R.
DeRose, New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT))

Response:  The NJDEP has reviewed the onroad activity data generated by
the most recent version of the NJTPA transportation demand model as
provided by NJDOT.  Very small changes to the 2008 transportation
conformity budgets were necessary.  These changes resulted in a small
net decrease in the sum of VOC and NOx emission projections for 2008 and
are considered to be technical adjustments.  There were no changes to
the 2009 budgets.  The tables containing the Reasonable Further Progress
(RFP) calculations were also updated to maintain their consistency with
the 2008 transportation conformity budgets. The conclusions of the RFP
analysis are not affected by this technical adjustment.

Comment:  The commenter understands that the NJDEP intends to issue new
regulations that establish a maximum NOx emission rate for glass
furnaces at 4.0 pounds emitted per ton of glass pulled.  They further
understand that this emission limit will be applicable on a
furnace-by-furnace basis and only immediately after a furnace is
rebrick/rebuilt.  The comment supports the establishment of this
emission limit, applicable only after furnace rebuild.  (W. Todd Ruff,
Durand Glass Manufacturing Company, Inc.)

Response:  The NJDEP appreciates the commenter’s support of its
proposed plan to reduce emissions from glass furnaces.  The
commenter’s outline of the current proposed plan is accurate; that is,
the NJDEP plans to propose regulations establishing a maximum NOx
emission rate of 4.0 pounds emitted per ton of glass pulled after
furnace rebuilds.  This plan was formulated after input/discussion with
affected parties who provided the NJDEP with additional information and
data in order to help determine how to best reduce NOx emissions from
this industry.  The NJDEP expects to propose its new glass furnace
regulations by the end of 2007, and reminds the commenter that this
proposal will be subject to public comment.

Comment:  The commenter (who is the only member of the tableware glass
industry segment operating in New Jersey) said that the State of the Art
Manual for the Glass Industry recognizes that tableware glass is a
discrete glass industry segment and the NJDEP has officially recognized
that glass tableware is a different source category from other types of
glass such as container glass, flat glass, and specialty glass (see
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19).  The commenter further listed a number of
distinctions between tableware glass and other glass categories, which
included the following:

Tableware glass recipes use higher purity materials and include sodium
nitrate, which affects NOx emission levels.

Tableware furnaces are much smaller, have an end-port design, and have
both a longer retention time for molten glass in the furnace and a
higher refining temperature to achieve the necessary product quality.

Tableware soda-lime glass furnaces usually maintain a higher air to gas
ratio within the furnace to achieve the necessary optical product
quality.

Given these distinctions, the tableware glass industry is particularly
sensitive to the potential imposition of Oxyfuel requirements, which are
inconsistent with the special performance requirements of tableware
glass furnaces.  Oxyfuel is not a technically valid method of reducing
emissions from tableware glass furnaces, particularly for end–port
fired furnaces.  The commenter notes that its end-port fired furnaces
already have inherently low NOx emissions due to actions taken in the
past.  The presence of sodium nitrate and the higher air ratios required
in tableware glass furnaces significantly eliminate a large portion of
Oxyfuel’s theoretical NOx emission reductions.  Therefore, the
commenter endorsed the NJDEP’s proposal to establish an industry-wide
emission limit, as opposed to a requirement mandating any specific
control technology or technique (such as oxyfire).  (W. Todd Ruff,
Durand Glass Manufacturing Company, Inc.)

Response:  Where feasible the NJDEP prefers to establish an
industry-wide emission performance limit, rather than require the use of
a specific control technology.  The NJDEP appreciates the commenter’s
endorsement of this plan.

Comment:  The commenter requested that to the extent that the proposed
limit for glass furnaces is not necessary as part of a SIP amendment,
the NJDEP consider further case-by-case flexibility for a facility to
address NOx emissions.  (W. Todd Ruff, Durand Glass Manufacturing
Company, Inc.)

Response:  On June 15, 2007, the NJDEP submitted its proposed 8-hour
Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP revision to the USEPA for their
review and consideration.  The core of this proposed SIP revision
provides a plausible demonstration that its two multi-state 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas (one associated with the New York City Metropolitan
Area, and a portion of New York and Connecticut in the North; the other
associated with the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area, all of Delaware, and
portions of Pennsylvania and Maryland in the South) will attain the
8-hour ozone NAAQS by their mandatory attainment date of June 15, 2010.
To make this demonstration, the NJDEP, and its neighboring states,
considered the impact of implementing numerous control measures prior to
the 2010 attainment data.  These control measures were included as part
of a modeling run to demonstrate attainment of the health-based standard
(hereafter referred to as the 2009 attainment demonstration modeling).

Because the glass manufacturing control measure, as outlined in Comment
#21, has a phased-in implementation schedule based on furnace rebuilds,
the emission reductions from that measure were not anticipated until
after the 2010 attainment date.  This measure was not included in the
2009 attainment demonstration modeling.  Its benefits were, however,
included in a 2012 modeling run, and the results from this modeling
exercise were referenced in Chapters 5 and 8 (Attainment Demonstration
and Contingency Measures) of the proposed SIP revision.  These
additional air quality benefits are further evidence of the State’s,
and the Ozone Transport Region’s, continued efforts toward maintaining
the current 8-hour ozone NAAQS, providing added public health and
environmental protection to address adverse impacts of ozone below the
current NAAQS, and making longer term progress toward attaining a
future, more stringent NAAQS, which has been proposed by the USEPA.

Comment:  PSEG Fossil committed to “achieving dramatic further
reductions in NOx emissions, as well as particulate matter (PM) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, from its coal-fired EGUs and the peaking
units in its New Jersey fleet.”  (Daniel Cunningham, PSEG Services
Corporation)

Response:  The NJDEP commends PSEG Fossil for its commitments to further
reduce NOx, PM, and SO2 emissions from its coal-fired EGUs and peaking
units.  It is only with this kind of cooperation from the regulated
community that the State can achieve its attainment goals and, most
importantly, protect the health and welfare of those who live, work, and
play in New Jersey.

Department-initiated Changes

In addition to non-substantive minor and/or stylistic edits (i.e.,
correcting typos, adjusting spacing, ensuring consistency, etc.), the
NJDEP made more substantive changes when finalizing the document and its
appendices for submittal to the USEPA.  Those changes are described
here.

Preliminary ozone data was used in the proposed SIP revision.
Subsequently, the ozone data for 2006 were finalized.  These final ozone
data were incorporated into the final SIP revision.

The RACT SIP was finalized on August 1, 2007.  As such, all references
to the RACT SIP revision were updated to reflect its adoption.

In Chapter 4 (Control Measures), some of the descriptions for New Jersey
RACT controls were clarified to reflect the most current draft
rulemakings in progress.  In addition, based on discussions with the
USEPA, on page 4-11 (top paragraph) the text, “NLEV Program starting
with model year 2006” was corrected to “NLEV Program ending with
model year 2006.”

In Chapter 5 (Attainment Demonstration), Table 5.2 was updated to
reflect New Jersey’s commitment to the 2009 beyond on the way (BOTW)
control measure for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI)
boilers, 100-250 MMBtu/hr.  The notes to Table 5.11 were corrected to
match the appropriate control measures, and the control measure
descriptions were revised to match those used in Chapter 4 (Control
Measures).  In addition, based upon discussions with the USEPA, Figure
5.9 was revised to only show the monitors with the highest 2002 and 2009
8-hour design values, rather than incorporating the averaged design
values for the New Jersey portions of the Northern New Jersey/New
York/Connecticut and Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment
areas.  The associated text was also revised to reflect the change in
the figure.  Finally, based upon discussions with the NJBPU, the
description of energy savings and alternative energy strategies in
Chapter 5 was clarified.  It was also revised to more accurately reflect
the coordination between the NJDEP and the NJBPU on quantifying benefits
for SIP credit.

In Chapter 6 (Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)), changes in Tables
6.1-6.3, 6.11-6.16, and Figures 6.1-6.2 were made corresponding to the
technical adjustment referenced above in comment 20.  In addition, minor
tabulation errors were resolved in Tables 6.1 through 6.3.  Inventory
numbers referenced in other chapters of the SIP revision were also
updated to reflect these changes.

Emission reductions estimated for control measures included in Appendix
D13 and used for some of the contingency measures in Chapter 8 were
revised to reflect the most current draft rulemaking proposals.

In Chapter 10 (Conformity), changes in Table 10.1 were made
corresponding to the technical adjustment referenced above in comment
20.

In Chapter 12 (Consideration of a New 8-Hour Ozone Health Standard), the
text was updated to reflect the publication of the USEPA’s proposal
for the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS (72 Fed. Reg. 37818 (July 11, 2007)).

 72 Fed. Reg. 20611 (April 27, 2007).

 A roof landing is an event where the liquid level in a floating roof
tank is lowered to (and beyond) the point where the floating roof is
resting on its legs or is supported from above by cables or hangers, and
is no longer floating on the surface of the stored liquid.

 Some companies were using the API methodology to report emissions prior
to 2006, consistent with New Jersey’s Emission Statement program
guidance.  Together, those companies reported over 900 tons of VOC
emissions from their VOC storage tanks for 2002, and over 900 tons again
for 2006.  When the USEPA formally adopted the roof landing methodology
into AP-42, another company disclosed over 1,000 tons from roof landings
for 2006.

 1,000 of these additional tons of emissions resulted from an
enforcement self disclosure (Kinder-Morgan), while the remaining 200
tons resulted from the emission statement effort.

 Memorandum of Understanding Among the States of the Ozone Transport
Commission Concerning the Incorporation of High Electrical Demand Day
Emission Reduction Strategies into Ozone Attainment State Implementation
Planning.  Ozone Transport Commission, March 2, 2007.

 PAGE

 PAGE  2

 PAGE  2

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

  PAGE  1