Rule2023-25239
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 16, 2023
Effective
December 18, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the regional haze Staet implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by New Jersey on March 26, 2020, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second implementation period. New Jersey's SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78650-78655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25239]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0432; FRL-10121-02-R2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Jersey; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
regional haze Staet implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by New
Jersey on March 26, 2020, as satisfying applicable requirements under
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the
program's second implementation period. New Jersey's SIP submission
addresses the requirement that states must periodically revise their
long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the
national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing,
anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in
mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses
other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of
the regional haze program.
DATES: This final rule is effective on December 18, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0432. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are
[[Page 78651]]
available electronically through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Ferreira, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, telephone number: (212) 637-3127,
email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c4a495e5e49455e4d0242454f4443404d5f6c495c4d024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96f0f3e4e4f3ffe4f7b8f8fff5fef9faf7e5d6f3e6f7b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Evaluation of Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On March 26, 2020, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional
haze for the second implementation period. NJDEP supplemented its SIP
submission on September 8, 2020, and April 1, 2021. NJDEP made this SIP
submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze
program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.
On August 19, 2022, the EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) in which the EPA proposed to approve New Jersey's
March 26, 2020, SIP submission, as supplemented on September 8, 2020,
and April 1, 2021, as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the
second implementation period contained in the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308.
See 87 FR 51016. The EPA is now determining that the New Jersey
regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation period meets
the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and is thus
approving New Jersey's submission into its SIP.
II. Evaluation of Comments
In response to the NPRM, the EPA received eight comments, seven of
which were unique, during the 30-day public comment period and is
providing responses to the comments that were received. The specific
comments may be viewed under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0432 on
the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website.
Comment: Several commentors, including MANE-VU, the Tennessee
Department of Environment & Conservation, and the National Park Service
(NPS), support EPA's proposal to approve New Jersey's regional haze
Staet implementation plan (SIP). One commenter, MANE-VU, also states
that it supports EPA's thorough approach in reviewing New Jersey's SIP,
including its response to each MANE-VU Ask.
Response: EPA appreciates and agrees with the commentors.
Comment: Several commentors, including the Tennessee Department of
Environment & Conservation, Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, and North Carolina Division of Air Quality, acknowledge EPA's
assessment and agree with EPA's determination that the Reasonable
Progress Goals (RPGs) cannot include strategies for upwind states that
those upwind states have not adopted.
Response: As noted in the NPRM, Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(i) specifies
that RPGs must reflect ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2) of this
section'' (emphasis added). RPGs are intended to provide a snapshot of
projected visibility conditions at the end of the implementation
period, assuming all measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress at a given class I area are being implemented. The emission
reduction measures that must be reflected in RPGs include adopted
regulations and measures that both the downwind and upwind states have
identified as necessary and that will be implemented by 2028. However,
EPA interprets this provision to exclude emission reduction measures
that downwind states believe are necessary to make reasonable progress
but that upwind states have not, at the time of plan submission,
determined are necessary pursuant to Sec. 51.308(f)(2). This ensures
that RPGs include only those measures that are reasonably certain to be
implemented.
New Jersey's 2028 RPGs include measures for upwind states that, as
of now, have not been determined to be necessary to make reasonable
progress by those upwind states and are not currently included in their
long-term strategies. Therefore, those RPGs in the New Jersey SIP do
not represent implementation of the measures required under Sec.
51.308(f)(2) and, as a result, do not accurately represent RPGs for
Brigantine Wilderness. New Jersey's 2028 most impaired base case of
18.16 deciviews reflects the visibility conditions that are projected
to be achieved based on states' existing measures. As such, EPA
considers the 2028 modeled base case value of 18.16 deciviews to be a
more appropriate, conservative estimate of the RPG for the 20% most
impaired visibility days as it does not inappropriately rely on highly
uncertain upwind emissions reductions.
Comment: The commentor, NPS, expresses concern over the use of
MANE-VU's contribution threshold to identify the Class 1 areas New
Jersey impacts beyond its boundaries and believes this threshold is not
adequately protective of cumulative visibility impacts at Class 1 areas
outside of the Staet. The commentor also states that it supports EPA's
recognition that New Jersey emission sources contribute to visibility
impairment for Class I areas beyond the Staet's boundaries, including
at Shenandoah National Park in Virginia.
Response: In the NPRM, EPA did not expressly determine and
explicitly state that New Jersey significantly contributes to
visibility impairment for Class I areas beyond its boundaries,
including at Shenandoah National Park in Virginia.
Regarding the analysis and determinations concerning New Jersey's
contribution to visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I areas,
the MANE-VU technical work focuses on the magnitude of visibility
impacts from certain New Jersey emissions on its Class I area and other
nearby Class I areas. Nevertheless, as explained in the NPRM, the
analyses this rulemaking is based on did not account for all emissions
and all components of visibility impairment (e.g., primary PM
emissions, and impairment from fine PM, elemental carbon, and organic
carbon). In addition, as stated in the NPRM, ``Q/d'' analyses \1\ with
a relatively simplistic accounting for wind trajectories and CALPUFF
being applied to a very limited set of electric generating units (EGUs)
and major industrial sources of sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) and
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) are not scientifically rigorous tools
capable of evaluating contribution to visibility impairment from all
emissions in a Staet. Furthermore, we note in the NPRM that the 2
percent or greater sulfate-plus-nitrate threshold used to determine
whether New Jersey emissions contribute to visibility impairment at a
particular Class I area may be higher than what EPA believes is an
``extremely low triggering threshold'' intended by the statute and
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Q/d'' is emissions (Q) in tons per year, typically of one
or a combination of visibility impairing pollutants, divided by
distance to a class I area (d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is
commonly used as a metric to assess a source's potential visibility
impacts on a particular class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, as discussed in the NPRM, based on the information provided
in the SIP submission, emissions from New Jersey do contribute to
visibility impairment at Brigantine Wilderness
[[Page 78652]]
and have relatively minor contributions to other out-of-state Class I
areas. However, as we indicated in the NPRM, due to the low triggering
threshold intended by the CAA and the RHR and the lack of rigorous
modeling analyses, EPA does not necessarily agree with New Jersey's
conclusion that, based on a 2% contribution threshold, it does not
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I areas outside the
Staet. While New Jersey noted that the contributions from several
states outside the MANE-VU region are significantly larger than its
own, we again clarify that each Staet is obligated under the CAA and
the RHR to address regional haze visibility impairment resulting from
emissions from within the State, irrespective of whether another
Staet's contribution is greater. See ``Clarifications Regarding
Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second implementation
Period,'' dated July 8, 2021 (``2021 Clarifications Memo'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans for the Second Implementation Period. The EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (July 8,
2021). <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarificationsregarding-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarificationsregarding-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The commentor, National Parks Conservation Association
(NPCA), states that EPA's final action must make clear that reliance on
the MANE-VU analysis alone is inadequate to satisfy the Regional Haze
Rule. The commentor expresses concern that (1) the MANE-VU 3.0 Mm-1
threshold for defining sources to evaluate for additional controls to
achieve reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal and
(2) the two percent threshold New Jersey employed based on MANE-VU are
unreasonably high.
Response: As explained in the NPRM, EPA does not necessarily agree
that the 3.0 inverse megameters (Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\) visibility impact
is a reasonable threshold for source selection. The RHR recognizes
that, due to the nature of regional haze visibility impairment,
numerous and sometimes relatively small sources may need to be selected
and evaluated for implementation of control measures to make reasonable
progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. As explained in the 2021
Clarifications Memo, while states have discretion to choose any source
selection threshold that is reasonable, ``[a] state that relies on a
visibility (or proxy for visibility impact) threshold to select sources
for four-factor analysis should set the threshold at a level that
captures a meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to
visibility impairment to Class I areas.'' See 2021 Memo at 3. In this
case, the 3.0 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ threshold identified only one source in
New Jersey (and only 22 across the entire MANE-VU region), indicating
that it may in some cases be unreasonably high. Since MANE-VU's
threshold identified only one source in New Jersey for four-factor
analysis, we do not in this case necessarily agree that a 3.0
Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ threshold for selecting sources for four-factor
analysis results in a set of sources the evaluation of which has the
potential to meaningfully reduce the Staet's contribution to visibility
impairment.
In this particular instance, we proposed to find that New Jersey's
additional information and explanation indicated that the State had in
fact examined a reasonable set of sources, including sources flagged by
the federal land managers (FLMs), and reasonably concluded that four-
factor analyses for its top-impacting sources were not necessary
because the outcome would be that no further emission reductions would
be reasonable. EPA based the proposed finding on the State's
examination of its largest operating EGUs and its industrial commercial
institutional (ICI) boilers, at the time of SIP submission, and on the
emissions from and controls that apply to those sources, as well as on
New Jersey's existing SIP-approved NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
rules that effectively control emissions from the largest contributing
stationary-source sectors.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See April 2021 Supplemental Information for New Jersey's
March 2020 Regional Haze SIP at 4-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The commentor, NPCA, asserts that, contrary to the CAA's
requirement, SIP measures, including stationary source emission
limitations, must be practically enforceable and approved into the SIP.
Additionally, the commentor notes EPA's proposal explains that for
MANE-VU's Ask 4, the State's reliance and use of this Ask, which
includes unspecified provisions that either are or will be in
stationary source permits, is approvable ``as being part of the
region's strategy for making reasonable progress.'' NPCA states that
EPA must not approve this element of the proposed SIP because the
permit provisions in construction and operating permits neither are nor
will be in the SIP.
Response: EPA's approval of New Jersey's regional haze SIP is based
on the fact the submission satisfies the applicable regulatory
requirements for the second planning period in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g),
and (i). The applicable regulatory requirements include that states
must evaluate and determine the emission reduction measures which are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four statutory
factors, and that the measures that are necessary for reasonable
progress must be in the SIP. EPA's NPRM explains that MANE-VU's Asks 2
and 3 engage with these requirements. EPA's proposal further explains
that the measures in the State's SIP, and the related explanations it
provided in its SIP submission, satisfy those Asks and therefore the
applicable regulatory requirements. EPA's approval is therefore based
on its determination that New Jersey's response to Asks 2 and 3 satisfy
the reasonable progress requirements. To the extent that MANE-VU and
the State regard the measures in Asks 1 and 4 through 6 as being part
of the long term strategy for making reasonable progress, it was
reasonable for New Jersey to address those Asks in its SIP submission.
As articulated in EPA's NPRM, Ask 4 requests that MANE-VU states
pursue updating permits, enforceable agreements, and/or rules to lock-
in lower emission rates for sources larger than 250 million British
Thermal Units (MMBtu) per hour that have switched to lower emitting
fuels. New Jersey's federally approved SIP for NO<INF>X</INF>
reasonably available control technology (RACT) limits the capability of
a subject facility to switch to higher emitting fuels.\4\ Furthermore,
New Jersey's federally approved sulfur regulations in their SIP,
provide that any source that combusts solid fuel and that is
constructed, installed, reconstructed or modified, is also subject to
New Jersey's state-of-the-art requirements,\5\ lowest achievable
emission rate requirements,\6\ and best available control technology
requirements at 40 CFR 52.21. In addition, modified units in New Jersey
are required to amend their permits through the New Source Review (NSR)
process if they plan to switch back to coal or a fuel that will
increase emissions. A change in fuel would be a modification.\7\ New
Jersey's operating
[[Page 78653]]
permits regulations require that an application to modify the permit be
submitted prior to the change in fuel.\8\ Given the permitting and
regulatory requirements outlined above, the EPA finds that New Jersey
reasonably determined it had satisfied Ask 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.20 ``Fuel switching.''
\5\ See N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.12 ``State of the art'' and N.J.A.C.
7:27-22.35 ``Advances in the art of air pollution control.''
\6\ See N.J.A.C. 7:27-18 ``Control and Prohibition of Air
Pollution from New or Altered Sources Affecting Ambient Air Quality
(Emission Offset Rules).''
\7\ See N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1, defining ``Modify'' or
``modification'' as ``means any physical change in, or change in the
method of operation of, existing equipment or control apparatus that
increases the amount of actual emissions of any air contaminant
emitted by that equipment or control apparatus or that results in
the emission of any air contaminant not previously emitted. This
term shall not include normal repair and maintenance. A modification
may be incorporated into an operating permit through a significant
modification, a minor modification, or a seven-day-notice change.''
\8\ See N.J.A.C. 7:27-22 ``Operating Permits.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Sierra Club and NPCA comment that EPA must thoroughly
consider environmental justice concerns, for which the New Jersey SIP
revision fails to adequately account. The energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance factor directs states to consider
the broader environmental implications of their regional haze plans, by
requiring an analysis of the ``non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance,'' including environmental justice. In addition, the
commenters assert that EPA failed to consider environmental justice
concerns in several New Jersey communities identified by EPA's EJ
Screen ranking in the ``90+ percentile for air toxics cancer risk, air
toxics respiratory health impacts, and ozone exposure.'' Commenters
also state that neither the SIP submittal nor EPA's proposal explain
how the SIP complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Response: The regional haze statutory provisions do not explicitly
address considerations of environmental justice, and neither do the
regulatory requirements of the second planning period in 40 CFR
51.308(f), (g), and (i). However, the lack of explicit direction does
not preclude the State's SIP submission. As explained in ``EPA Legal
Tools to Advance Environmental Justice,'' \9\ the CAA provides states
with the discretion to consider environmental justice in developing
rules and measures related to regional haze. While a Staet may consider
environmental justice under the reasonable progress factors, neither
the statute nor the regulation requires states to conduct an
environmental justice analysis for EPA to approve a SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, May
2022, available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf</a> at 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance, New Jersey explained that it ``determined that
reasonable progress is being made with the implementation of the Asks
and other additional measures to improve visibility for the second
planning period.'' \10\ In its submittal, the State also noted that it
has an advisory body, the Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(EJAC), that is committed to the basic tenet set forth by the
``Environmental Justice Movement that all communities, regardless of
their racial, ethnic, or economic composition, are entitled to equal
protection from the consequences of environmental hazards.'' New
Jersey's submittal also states that EJAC has a workgroup that focuses
on air issues. In addition, the State's submittal indicates that New
Jersey Executive Order No. 23,\11\ signed on April 20, 2018, by
Governor Murphy, directs NJDEP, with support from other agencies, to
develop guidance on how all Staet departments can incorporate
environmental justice considerations into their actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Appendix K of docket EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0432.
\11\ <a href="https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/E.O.-23.pdf">https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/E.O.-23.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters have provided additional information from an EJ Screen
analysis that the State did not consider as part of its regional haze
decision making. Without agreeing with the particular relevance or
accuracy of this information, EPA acknowledges the EJ Screen
information provided as part of the comment, which identifies certain
demographic and environmental information regarding areas across New
Jersey. The focus of the SIP at issue here, the regional haze SIP for
New Jersey, is sulfate and nitrate emissions. This action addresses one
EGU facility with three units and two industrial/institutional sources
of air pollution impacting Class I areas. As discussed in the NPRM and
in this notice of final rulemaking, EPA has evaluated New Jersey's SIP
submission against the statutory and regulatory regional haze
requirements and determined that it satisfies those minimum
requirements. Furthermore, the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation of
environmental justice with a SIP.
In addition to the above-discussed environmental justice related
comments, the commenters also reference Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VI). EPA has previously addressed comments
pertaining to Title VI and submitted on attainment planning SIP
actions. See, e.g., 87 FR 60494, 60530 (Oct. 5, 2022); 77 FR 65294
(Oct. 26, 2012). Most recently, EPA acknowledged in the October 5,
2022, proposed action that EPA has not issued national guidance or
regulations concerning consideration of Title VI in the context of the
SIP program. EPA indicated in the October 5, 2022, proposed action that
guidance concerning implementation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) and
Title VI is forthcoming.
Comment: The commentor, NPCA, asserts that there are two statements
in section III.C. ``Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze,'' \12\ of the
proposal that are inconsistent with the statutory requirements for
reasonable progress. The commentor states that EPA must correct and
clarify these inaccurate and confusing statements in its final action.
The commentor notes that where a Staet uses visibility impacts (or
supposedly minimal or insufficient visibility improvements) to reject
emission controls at air pollution sources, that SIP submittal will be
at odds with the plain language of the Act. The commentor also states
that EPA must clarify in its final action that states must not rely on
visibility to exclude emission reducing measures from a source that
would otherwise be required to do so under the four statutory factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 87 FR 51020-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: EPA agrees with the commentor that visibility should not
be used to summarily reject controls that are reasonable given the four
statutory factors and notes that New Jersey did not use visibility
impacts to reject emission controls at air pollution sources in its SIP
submission. However, the EPA has also explained that states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility
benefits as an optional factor alongside the four statutory factors, so
long as such consideration does undermine or nullify the role of those
statutory factors.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0531,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019 Guidance at 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
EPA is approving New Jersey's March 26, 2020, SIP submission,
supplemented on September 8, 2020, and April 1, 2021, as satisfying the
regional haze requirements for the second implementation period
contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve Staet
choices, provided that they meet
[[Page 78654]]
the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves Staet law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by Staet law. For that
reason, this action:
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
<bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a Staet program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and it will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
The NJDEP did not evaluate EJ considerations by means of an
extensive EJ analysis as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such
an evaluation. Nevertheless, NJDEP did reference existing EJ programs
within its SIP submittal, as described above in the section titled,
``Evaluation of Comments.'' EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did
not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being
taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive
impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is
not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the
record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 16, 2024. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Lisa Garcia,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart FF--New Jersey
0
2. In Sec. 52.1570, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Regional Haze Plan from 2018-2028'' at the end of the table
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1570 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved New Jersey Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable geographic New Jersey
SIP element or nonattainment area submittal date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan from 2018- State-wide............ March 26, 2020 as 11/16/2023, <bullet> Full
2028. supplemented on [insert Federal approval.
September 8, Register <bullet> New
2020 and April citation]. Jersey has met
1, 2021. the Regional
Haze Rule
requirements for
the 2nd
implementation
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78655]]
[FR Doc. 2023-25239 Filed 11-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 16, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.