[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://www.regulations.gov 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 https://www.regulations.gov.

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: [email protected].

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 https://www.regulations.gov 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 (SO2) and 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) 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). https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarificationsregarding-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-\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-\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-\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 NOX and SO2 
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 NOX 
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 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf 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\ https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/E.O.-23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it approves a Staet program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act.
    In addition, 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,         Full
 2028.                                                    supplemented on    [insert Federal    approval.
                                                          September 8,       Register           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