Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49711 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2011–0607, FRL–9450–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

New Jersey; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the revision to the State Implementation 

Plan submitted by the State of New 

Jersey on July 28, 2009, and 

supplemented on December 9, 2010, 

and March 2, 2011, that addresses 

regional haze for the first planning 

period from 2008 through 2018. This 

revision addresses the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act and EPA’s rules that 

require states to prevent any future, and 

remedy any existing, anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants located over a wide 

geographic area (also referred to as the 

‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. This plan protects and improves 

visibility levels in New Jersey’s Class I 

area, the Brigantine Wilderness Area of 

the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife 

Refuge, as well as other Class I areas in 

the Northeast United States. New 

Jersey’s SIP is in two parts: Reasonable 

Progress and application of Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Reasonable Progress portion of the plan, 

since New Jersey has adopted all of the 

reasonably available measures 

recommended by the states during the 

development of the SIP. EPA is 

proposing approval of New Jersey’s 

plans to implement Best Available 

Retrofit Technologies on eligible 

sources, as well New Jersey’s 

Subchapter 9, Sulfur in Fuels. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket Number EPA–R02– 

OAR–2011–0607, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901. 

• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2011–0607. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/air/docket.html. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. EPA requests, if 

at all possible, that you contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view 

the hard copy of the docket. You may 

view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 

4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert F. Kelly, State Implementation 

Planning Section, Air Programs Branch, 

EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New 

York, New York 10007–1866. The 

telephone number is (212) 637–4049. 

Mr. Kelly can also be reached via 

electronic mail at kelly.bob@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What are the requirements for the 

Regional Haze SIPs? 

A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

D. Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of New Jersey’s 

regional haze submittal? 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling to Support the Long-Term 

Strategy and Determine Visibility 

Improvement for Uniform Rate of 

Progress 

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment 

4. Reasonable Progress Goals 

5. Subchapter 9—Sulfur In Fuels 

6. Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology 

a. BART-Eligible Sources in New Jersey 

b. Identification and Evaluation of 

Additional BART-Eligible Sources in 

New Jersey 

c. BART Evaluations for Sources Identified 

as BART by New Jersey 

C. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

D. Periodic SIP revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
49712 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1On June 20, 2007, MANE–VU adopted two 

documents which provide the technical basis for 

consultation among the interested parties and 

define the basic strategies for controlling pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

the eastern United States. The documents, entitled 

‘‘Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 

Union (MANE–VU) Concerning a Course of Action 

within MANE–VU toward Assuring Reasonable 

Progress,’’ and ‘‘Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/ 

Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU) Concerning 

a Request for a Course of Action by States outside 

of MANE–VU toward Assuring Reasonable 

Progress’’ are together known as the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask.’’ 

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

V. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘Agency,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, 

we mean the EPA. 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve the State 

of New Jersey’s (New Jersey’s) July 28, 

2009 State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision addressing regional haze under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) 

sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3). New 

Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP revision 

implements all measures determined by 

the State to be reasonable and addresses 

New Jersey’s Reasonable Progress Goals 

(RPG), as required by the Act. RPGs are 

interim visibility goals towards meeting 

the national visibility goal. New Jersey’s 

Regional Haze SIP revision also 

implements Best Available Retrofit 

Control Technology (BART) on eligible 

facilities subject to the regional haze 

program. 

Consistent with EPA guidance and 

regulations, (see 70 FR 39104, 39106 

(July 6, 2005)), many states relied on 

EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

to satisfy key elements of Regional Haze 

SIPs. The D.C. Circuit, however, found 

CAIR to be inconsistent with the 

requirements of the Act and remanded 

the rule to the Agency. North Carolina 

v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 929–30 (D.C. Cir. 

2008); modified on rehearing, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). In response to the 

remand of the CAIR rule, on July 6, 2011 

EPA finalized the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR); a rule intended 

to reduce the interstate transport of fine 

particulate matter and ozone, located at 

http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule. 

Although New Jersey was subject to 

CAIR, its Regional Haze SIP did not rely 

on CAIR to meet the requirements for 

BART or for attaining the in-state 

emissions reductions necessary to 

ensure reasonable progress, instead, 

New Jersey evaluated controls for its 

potential BART sources. New Jersey 

made BART determinations for its 

BART-eligible sources, including 

Electric Generating Units (EGUs) that 

might have been controlled under CAIR. 

Similarly, its long-term strategy for 

attaining the RPG at the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area of the Edwin B. 

Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

(Brigantine) includes controls on EGUs 

in New Jersey. Therefore, the remand of 

CAIR has no negative effect on the 

amount of emission reductions New 

Jersey will achieve from its Regional 

Haze SIP revision. This action and the 

accompanying Technical Support 

Document (TSD) explain the basis for 

EPA’s proposed approval of New 

Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP revision 

proposal. 

New Jersey has met all of its 

obligations with respect to the Regional 

Haze SIP requirements, including the 

recommendation1 of the Mid-Atlantic/ 

Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU) 

regional planning organization. New 

Jersey should not be required to 

substitute for any emissions shortfalls in 

other states’ plans, especially if other 

states expected that EPA’s CAIR 

program would be available as part of 

their RPGs or their BART controls. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to approve 

New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP 

revision, since it adopts all the measures 

determined to be reasonable by New 

Jersey, as evaluated by the states 

working together through MANE–VU. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by many sources and 

activities which are located across a 

broad geographic area and emit fine 

particles and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in 

some cases, ammonia and volatile 

organic compounds). Fine particle 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust), which 

also impairs visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. Visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national parks and wilderness areas, 

many of which are also referred to as 

Federal Class I areas. 

In the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, 

Congress initiated a program for 

protecting visibility in the nation’s 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

Section 169A(a)(1) of the Act establishes 

as a national goal the ‘‘prevention of any 

future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ In 1990 Congress added 

section 169B to the Act to address 

regional haze issues. On July 1, 1999 

EPA promulgated the Regional Haze 

Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35713). The 

requirement to submit a Regional Haze 

SIP applies to New Jersey and all 50 

states, the District of Columbia and the 

Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) of the 

RHR required states to submit the first 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment no 

later than December 17, 2007. 

On January 15, 2009, EPA issued a 

finding that New Jersey failed to submit 

the Regional Haze SIP. New Jersey 

subsequently submitted its Regional 

Haze SIP on July 28, 2009. EPA’s 

January 15, 2009 finding established a 

two-year deadline of January 15, 2011 

for EPA to either approve New Jersey’s 

Regional Haze SIP, or adopt a Federal 

implementation plan. This proposed 

action is intended to address the 

January 15, 2009 finding. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. New Jersey participates 

in the MANE–VU RPO, which also 

includes the state and tribal 

governments of Connecticut, Delaware, 

District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Vermont, the Penobscot Nation, and the 

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. 

III. What are the requirements for 

Regional Haze SIPs? 

The following is a basic explanation 

of the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.308 for a 

complete listing of the regulations under 

which this SIP revision was evaluated. 

A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the Act and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49713 

2The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999)). 

3 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and 

Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004 September 2003 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/ 

memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

4 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 

under the Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 2007, 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 

(pp.4–2, 5–1). 

5The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 

determined by measuring the visual 

range, which is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark 

object can be viewed against the sky. 

The dv is calculated from visibility 

measurements. Each dv change is an 

equal incremental change in visibility 

perceived by the human eye. For this 

reason, EPA believes it is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility. Most people can 

detect a change in visibility at one dv.2

The dv is used in expressing RPGs 

(which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by manmade air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air 

pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437) and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, the RHR requires states to 

calculate the degree of existing visibility 

impairment at each Class I area at the 

time of each regional haze SIP submittal 

and periodically review progress every 

five years midway through each 10-year 

planning period. To do this, the RHR 

requires states to determine the degree 

of impairment (in dv) for the average of 

the 20 percent least impaired (‘‘best’’) 

and 20 percent most impaired (‘‘worst’’) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of their Class I areas. In 

addition, the RHR requires states to 

develop an estimate of natural visibility 

conditions for the purposes of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. EPA has provided guidance 

to states regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural and current visibility 

conditions.3

For the initial regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

baseline visibility conditions were used 

as the starting points for assessing 

current visibility impairment. Baseline 

visibility conditions represent the 

degree of impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days at the time the regional 

haze program was established. Using 

monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, 

the RHR required states to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area, based on the 

average of annual values over the five 

year period. The comparison of initial 

baseline visibility conditions to natural 

visibility conditions indicates the 

amount of improvement necessary to 

attain natural visibility, while the future 

comparison of baseline conditions to the 

then current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The submission of a series of regional 

haze SIPs from the states that establish 

RPGs for Class I areas for each 

(approximately) 10-year planning period 

is the vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal. The RHR does not 

mandate specific milestones or rates of 

progress, but instead calls for states to 

establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in the Act and in EPA’s 

RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the time necessary for compliance; (3) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

and (4) the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources. States must 

demonstrate in their SIPs how these 

factors are considered when selecting 

the RPGs for the best and worst days for 

each applicable Class I area. (See 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in our Reasonable Progress 

guidance.4 In setting the RPGs, states 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (referred to as the 

‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the 

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. In setting RPGs, each state with one 

or more Class I areas (‘‘Class I State’’) 

must also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emission sources that may be 

affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I State’s areas. (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv)). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology (BART) 

Section 169A of the Act directs states 

to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at 

certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 

stationary sources in order to address 

visibility impacts from these sources. 

Specifically, the Act requires states to 

revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing 

stationary sources 5 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology (BART)’’ as determined by 

the state. (CAA 169A(b)(2)(A)). States 

are directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such sources that 

may be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Rather than requiring 

source-specific BART controls, states 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
49714 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

also have the flexibility to adopt an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative program as long as the 

alternative provides equal or greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. The BART 

Guidelines require states to use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines in making a BART 

applicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts. The BART Guidelines 

encourage, but do not require states to 

follow the BART Guidelines in making 

BART determinations for other types of 

sources. 

The BART Guidelines recommend 

that states address all visibility 

impairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and PM. The 

BART Guidelines direct states to use 

their best judgment in determining 

whether volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), or ammonia (NH3) and 

ammonia compounds impair visibility 

in Class I areas. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that 

states consider the following factors: (1) 

The costs of compliance, (2) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 

pollution control technology in use at 

the source, (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. (70 FR 39170, (July 6, 2005)). 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP, as required in the Act 

(section 169A(g)(4)) and in the RHR (40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to 

what is required by the RHR, general 

SIP requirements mandate that the SIP 

must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. States 

have the flexibility to choose the type of 

control measures they will use to meet 

the requirements of BART. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the Act that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 

10 to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a Long-Term Strategy (LTS) in their 

SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all 

control measures a state will use to meet 

any applicable RPGs. The LTS must 

include ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals’’ for all 

Class I areas within, or affected by 

emissions from, the state. (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. (40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). In such cases, the 

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included in its SIP all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between states may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the seven factors 

listed below is taken into account in 

developing their LTS: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address Reasonably Attributable 

Visibility Impairment (RAVI); (2) 

measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; (3) emissions 

limitations and schedules for 

compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; (7) the anticipated net effect 

on visibility due to projected changes in 

point, area, and mobile source 

emissions over the period addressed by 

the LTS. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 51.308(b) and (c). On 

or before this date, the state must revise 

its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing reasonably attributable and 

regional haze visibility impairment, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP revision. Future coordinated 

LTS’s, and periodic progress reports 

evaluating progress towards RPGs, must 

be submitted consistent with the 

schedule for SIP submission and 

periodic progress reports set forth in 40 

CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), 

respectively. The periodic reviews of a 

state’s LTS must report on both regional 

haze and RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, in 

accordance with 51.308. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environment (IMPROVE) network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49715 

6NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/contributions-to-regional-haze-in-thenortheast-and-mid-atlantic—united-states/. 

7MANE–VU Report at http://www.otcair.org/ 

manevu/Document.asp?fview=Reports. 

8NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/bart-final-memo-06-28-07.pdf/. 

9NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf/. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. (40 CFR 

51.308(i)). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of New 

Jersey’s regional haze submittal? 

On July 28, 2009 the State of New 

Jersey submitted a revision to the New 

Jersey SIP to address regional haze in 

the State’s Class I Brigantine Wilderness 

Area as required by EPA’s RHR. 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

New Jersey contains a Class I area, the 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, 

where visual impairment that the FLMs 

have identified as an important value 

that must be addressed in regional haze 

plans. Emissions from New Jersey also 

influence the amount of visibility 

impairment of Class I areas located in 

Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. 

New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP will 

help to improve visibility in these 

states. Thus, New Jersey is responsible 

for developing a Regional Haze SIP that 

addresses its own and other Class I 

areas, that describes its long-term 

emission strategy, its role in the 

consultation processes, and how its SIP 

meets the other requirements in EPA’s 

regional haze regulations. Because New 

Jersey is home to a Class I area, New 

Jersey has the additional responsibility 

to address the following Regional Haze 

SIP elements: (a) Calculation of baseline 

and natural visibility conditions, (b) 

establishment of RPGs, (c) monitoring 

requirements, and (d) RAVI 

requirements as required by EPA’s RHR. 

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS) 

As described above, the Long Term 

Strategy (LTS) is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by 

the state to obtain its share of emission 

reductions to support the RPGs for the 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge. 

New Jersey’s LTS for the first 

implementation period, addresses the 

emissions reductions from Federal, 

state, and local controls that take effect 

in the State from the baseline period 

starting in 2002 until 2018. New Jersey 

participated in the MANE–VU RPO 

regional strategy development process. 

As a participant, New Jersey supported 

a regional approach towards deciding 

which control measures to pursue for 

regional haze, which was based on 

technical analyses documented in the 

following reports: (a) Contributions to 

Regional Haze in the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic United States 6; (b) 

Assessment of Reasonable Progress for 

Regional Haze in MANE–VU Class I 

Areas 7; (c) Five-Factor Analysis of 

BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of 

Options for Conducting BART 

Determinations 8; and (d) Assessment of 

Control Technology Options for BARTEligible Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, 

Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and 

Paper, and Pulp Facilities.9

The LTS was developed by New 

Jersey, in coordination with MANE–VU, 

identifying the emissions units within 

New Jersey that likely have the largest 

impacts currently on visibility at the 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 

Class I area, estimating emissions 

reductions for 2018, based on all 

controls required under Federal and 

state regulations for the 2002–2018 

period (including BART), and 

comparing projected visibility 

improvement with the uniform rate of 

progress for the Brigantine National 

Wildlife Refuge Class I area. 

New Jersey’s LTS includes measures 

needed to achieve its share of emissions 

reductions and includes enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals established for the 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 

Class I area. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses was 

developed by the Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Air Management Association for 

MANE–VU with assistance from New 

Jersey. The 2018 emissions inventory 

was developed by projecting 2002 

emissions, and assuming emissions 

growth due to projected increases in 

economic activity as well as applying 

reductions expected from Federal and 

state regulations affecting the emissions 

of VOC and the visibility-impairing 

pollutants NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. 

The BART guidelines direct states to 

exercise judgment in deciding whether 

VOC and NH3 impair visibility in their 

Class I area(s). As discussed further 

below, MANE–VU demonstrated that 

anthropogenic emissions of sulfates are 

the major contributor to PM2.5 mass and 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. 

It was also determined that the total 

ammonia emissions in the MANE–VU 

region are extremely small. In addition, 

since VOC emissions are aggressively 

controlled through the New Jersey 

ozone SIP, the pollutants New Jersey 

considered under BART are NOX, PM10, 

PM2.5, and SO2. 

In developing the 2018 reasonable 

progress goal, and the 2018 projection 

inventory, New Jersey relied primarily 

upon the information and analyses 

developed by MANE–VU to meet the 

requirements of EPA’s regional haze 

rules. Based on information from the 

contribution assessment and additional 

emission inventory analyses, MANE– 

VU identified the following source 

categories for further examination for 

reasonable measures: 

• Coal and oil-fired EGUs; 

• Point and area source industrial, 

commercial and institutional (ICI) 

boilers; 

• Cement and Lime Kilns; 

• Heating oil; and 

• Residential wood combustion. 

MANE–VU, for its member states and 

tribes, analyzed these potential source 

categories based on the four factors 

listed in section 169A(g)(1) of the Act 

and in Section III.C of this action. New 

Jersey and the MANE–VU states agreed 

with the analysis that determined that 

reasonable controls existed for coal and 

oil-fired EGUs, industrial, commercial 

and institutional (ICI) boilers and that 

reducing the sulfur content of heating 

oil was a reasonable strategy. 

Additionally, MANE–VU determined 

that due to the lack of specific data for 

the wide range of residential wood 

boilers, it was not reasonable to set 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
49716 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

10MANE–VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress 

Goals. February 7, 2008. 

11See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 

2007). 

particular reductions amounts for 

emissions from residential wood boilers. 

New Jersey adopted controls on EGUs 

and boilers. While New Jersey’s plan 

does not include emission reduction 

regulations for residential wood boilers, 

New Jersey will consider state specific 

wood burning provisions, which was 

the strategy agreed to by the MANE–VU 

states. ICI boiler controls were 

implemented as an Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) regional measure for 

VOC and NOX controls that have 

benefits for reducing regional haze. New 

Jersey does not have any cement or lime 

kilns. More details on the adopted 

controls are described later in this 

section. 

After identifying potential control 

measures and performing the four factor 

analysis, MANE–VU performed initial 

modeling that showed the visibility 

impacts from the implementation of the 

measures. The initial modeling results 

showed that the projected 2018 

visibility on the 20% worst days at the 

Brigantine Wilderness area was at least 

as good at the uniform rate of progress. 

Details of MANE–VU’s initial modeling 

were later documented in the MANE– 

VU Modeling for RPGs report.10 Based 

on the modeling results and other 

analysis performed by MANE–VU, the 

MANE–VU states developed ‘‘Asks,’’ 

which are ‘‘emission management’’ 

strategies. These strategies served as the 

basis for the consultation with the other 

states. 

As part of the modeling needed to 

assess the emission reductions needed 

to meet the RPG, MANE–VU developed 

emissions inventories for four inventory 

source classifications: (1) Stationary 

point sources, (2) area sources, (3) offroad mobile sources, and (4) on-road 

mobile sources. The New York State 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation also developed an 

inventory of biogenic emissions for the 

entire MANE–VU region. Stationary 

point emission sources are those sources 

that emit greater than a specified 

tonnage per year, depending on the 

pollutant, with data provided at the 

facility level. Area source emissions are 

from stationary sources whose 

individual emissions are relatively 

small, but due to the large number of 

these sources, the collective emissions 

from the source category could be 

significant. Off-road mobile source 

emissions are from equipment that can 

move but do not use the roadways. Onroad mobile source emissions are from 

automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles 

that use the roadway system. The 

emissions from these sources are 

estimated by vehicle type and road type. 

Biogenic sources emissions are from 

natural sources like trees, crops, grasses, 

and natural decay of plants. Stationary 

point sources emission data is tracked at 

the facility level. For all other source 

types emissions are summed on the 

county level. 

There are many Federal and state 

control programs being implemented 

that MANE–VU and New Jersey 

anticipate will reduce emissions 

between the baseline period and 2018. 

Emission reductions from these control 

programs were projected to achieve 

substantial visibility improvement by 

2018 in the Brigantine National Wildlife 

Refuge. To assess emissions reductions 

from ongoing air pollution control 

programs, BART, and reasonable 

progress goals; MANE–VU developed 

2018 emissions projections called Best 

and Final. The emissions inventory 

provided in the Best and Final 2018 

projections is based on adopted and 

enforceable requirements, as well as 

Federal programs, such as Federal motor 

vehicle control programs and maximum 

achievable control technologies 

(MACT). 

These measures are included in the 

MANE–VU modeling used to determine 

the amount of progress in the 

improvement of visibility in Class I 

areas. MANE–VU States agreed to 

implement several measures at the state 

level. These measures are: a timely 

implementation of BART requirements, 

90 percent or more reduction in sulfur 

dioxide at 167 stacks identified by 

MANE–VU (or comparable alternative 

measures), and low sulfur fuel oil 

regulations (with limits specified for 

each state). 

Controls from various Federal MACT 

regulations were also utilized in the 

development of the 2018 emission 

inventory projections. These MACTs 

include the industrial boiler/process 

heater MACT, the combustion turbine 

and reciprocating internal combustion 

engines MACTs, and the VOC 2-, 4-, 

7-, and 10-year MACT standards. 

EPA’s industrial boiler/process heater 

MACT was vacated on June 8, 2007.11

The MANE–VU States, including the 

State of New Jersey, included these 

controls in modeling for their regional 

haze SIPs. EPA accepts these emission 

reductions in the modeling for the 

following reasons. EPA expects to 

propose a new Industrial Boiler MACT 

rule to address the vacatur in October 

2011 and issue a final rule in April 

2012, giving New Jersey time to assure 

the required controls are in place prior 

to the end of the first planning period 

in 2018. In the absence of an established 

MACT for boilers and process heaters, 

the statutory language in section 112(j) 

of the Act specifies a schedule for the 

incorporation of enforceable MACTequivalent limits into the Title V 

operating permits of affected sources. 

Should circumstances warrant the need 

to enact section 112(j) of the Act for 

industrial boilers, compliance with 

case-by-case MACT limits for industrial 

boilers would occur no later than 

January 2015, which is well before the 

2018 RPGs for regional haze. The RHR 

also requires that any resulting 

differences between emissions 

projections and actual emissions 

reductions that may occur will be 

addressed during the five-year review 

prior to the next regional haze SIP. In 

addition, the expected reductions due to 

the original, vacated Industrial Boiler 

MACT rule were relatively small 

compared to the State’s projected total 

SO2 emissions in 2018 (i.e., one to two 

percent of the projected 2018 SOX, 

PM2.5 and coarse particulate matter 

(PM10) inventory), and are not likely to 

affect any of New Jersey’s modeling 

conclusions. Thus, even if there is a 

need to address discrepancies between 

the projected emissions reductions from 

the now vacated Industrial Boiler MACT 

and actual reductions achieved by the 

replacement MACT, we do not expect 

that this would be significant enough to 

affect the adequacy of the New Jersey 

Regional Haze SIP. 

The MANE–VU States’ goal was to 

reduce SO2 emissions from the largest 

emission units in the eastern United 

States by 90 percent or if it was 

infeasible to achieve that level of 

reduction, an alternative had to be 

identified that could include other point 

sources. In New Jersey, there are four of 

the 167 units identified by MANE–VU 

as having the highest SO2 emissions in 

the eastern United States. New Jersey 

has reduced emissions from these four 

units at each facility by more than 90 

percent, thus meeting and exceeding 

this portion of the reasonable progress 

goals. 

New Jersey is fulfilling its goal of 

achieving the emission reductions 

needed to meet its contribution to the 

reasonable progress goals projected by 

the MANE–VU modeling with the 

following measures: BART controls on 

all BART-eligible facilities, 90 percent 

or more control at the four New Jersey 

units from the 167 EGU units identified 

by MANE–VU, reductions due to New 

Jersey’s Mercury rule, adoption of 

performance standards at all coal-fired 

boilers in New Jersey, adoption of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49717 

lower limits on fuel oil and the 

measures listed in Table 1 developed for 

other programs that support regional 

haze emission reduction goals. 

TABLE 1—ADDITIONAL STATE CONTROL MEASURES THAT SUPPORT REGIONAL HAZE GOALS

Control measures Status Notes 

Diesel Idling Rule Changes ................................................... Rule adopted May 25, 2007 ................ Direct PM2.5 and NOX reductions. 

High Electrical Demand Day units ........................................ Rule adopted March 20, 2009 ............. SO2 and NOX reductions. 

Oil and gas Fired Electric Generating Units (EGUs) ............ Rule adopted March 20, 2009 ............. NOX reductions. 

Sewage Sludge Incinerators ................................................. Rule adopted March 20, 2009 ............. NOX reductions. 

Case by Case NOX Emission Limit Determinations (FSELs/ 

AELs).

Rule adopted March 20, 2009 ............. NOX reductions. 

Glass Manufacturing ............................................................. Rule adopted March 20, 2009 ............. NOX reductions but most benefits will 

occur post-2010. 

Municipal Waste Combustor (Incinerator) NOX Rule ........... Rule adopted March 20, 2009 ............. NOX reductions. 

Asphalt Production Plants ..................................................... Rule adopted March 20, 2009 ............. NOX reductions. 

Diesel Smoke (I/M Cutpoint) Rule Changes ......................... Rule adopted April 3, 2009 .................. PM2.5 and NOX reductions. 

Onroad New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program Adopted November 28, 2005 ............... VOC, NOX, SO2, and direct PM2.5 reductions. 

Energy Master Plan ............................................................... Finalized October 22, 2008. 

Federal measures and other control 

programs relied upon by New Jersey 

include EPA’s NOX SIP Call; measures 

adopted for New Jersey’s 1-hour and 8- 

hour ozone attainment demonstration 

SIPs, Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel 

engine standards for on-road trucks and 

busses; Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls 

for on-road vehicles; Federal large spark 

ignition and recreational vehicle 

controls; and EPA’s non-road diesel 

rules. New Jersey also relied on 

emission reductions from various 

Federal MACTs that were vacated, but, 

as described above, EPA expects these 

rules to be adopted by 2018, and should 

not negatively affect New Jersey’s 

fulfillment of its commitment to meet 

the RPGs. In addition, the RHR requires 

that any resulting differences between 

emissions projections and actual 

emissions reductions that may occur 

will be addressed during the five-year 

review prior to the next 2018 Regional 

Haze SIP. 

Tables 2 and 3 are summaries of the 

2002 baseline and 2018 estimated 

emissions inventories for New Jersey. 

The 2018 estimated emissions include 

emission growth as well as emission 

reductions due to ongoing emission 

control strategies to meet RPGs and 

BART. 

These emissions were used in the 

modeling that demonstrated that the 

Brigantine Wildlife Refuge Class I area 

would meet the Reasonable Progress 

Goal set for 2018. New Jersey adopted 

the emission reduction programs that 

are forecast to improve visibility to meet 

the goal for 2018, thus New Jersey is 

projected to achieve its goal for the first 

implementation period. 

TABLE 2—NEW JERSEY/MANE–VU MODELING INVENTORY SUMMARY, 2002 BASE INVENTORY

NOX VOC CO NH3 Primary PM10 Primary PM2.5 SO2

Point ............................. 51,593 16,547 12,301 0 6,072 4,779 61,217 

Area .............................. 26,692 167,883 97,657 17,572 31,664 17,044 10,744 

Non-Road ..................... 63,479 83,919 704,396 43 5,501 4,997 15,686 

On-Road ....................... 161,289 110,529 1,461,653 7,316 3,785 2,529 3,627 

Total ...................... 303,053 378,877 2,276,006 24,931 47,021 29,350 91,273 

TABLE 3—NEW JERSEY/MANE–VU MODELING INVENTORY SUMMARY, 2018 PROJECTION INVENTORY

NOX VOC CO NH3 Primary PM10 Primary PM2.5 SO2

Point ............................. 31,100 20,267 19,855 564 8,969 7,745 23,421 

Area .............................. 21,684 134,089 83,119 21,435 31,874 15,220 1,781 

Non-Road ..................... 41,166 53,625 831,880 52 3,489 3,143 832 

On-Road ....................... 30,150 31,415 742,000 8,555 1,232 1,140 785 

Total ...................... 124,100 239,396 1,676,854 30,606 45,564 27,247 26,819 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

MANE–VU performed modeling for 

the regional haze LTS for the states, the 

District of Columbia and tribal nations 

located in Mid-Atlantic and Northeast 

portions of the United States. The 

modeling analysis is a complex 

technical evaluation that began with 

selection of the modeling system. 

MANE–VU used a modeling system 

described below and discussed in more 

detail in the TSD. 

The EPA’s Models-3/Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) version 

4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model 

capable of addressing ozone, PM, 

visibility and acid deposition on a 

regional scale. CMAQ modeling of 

regional haze in the MANE–VU region 

for 2002 and 2018 was carried out on a 

grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that 

covers the 11 MANE–VU States and the 

District of Columbia and states adjacent 

to them. This grid is nested within a 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
49718 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

12EPA’s Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of 

Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional 

Haze, located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/

guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, 

(EPA–454/B–07–002), April 2007, and EPA 

document, Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

and Regional Haze Regulations, located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, 

EPA–454/R–05–001, August 2005, updated 

November 2005 (‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’). 

larger national CMAQ modeling grid of 

36x36 km grid cells that covers the 

continental United States, portions of 

Canada and Mexico, and portions of the 

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the 

east and west coasts. Selection of a 

representative period of meteorology is 

crucial for evaluating baseline air 

quality conditions and projecting future 

changes in air quality due to changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis that resulted in the 

selection of the entire year of 2002 

(January 1–December 31) as the best 

period of meteorology available for 

conducting the CMAQ modeling. The 

MANE–VU States’ modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA 

guidance.12

MANE–VU examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

MANE–VU used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), New Jersey provided the 

supporting documentation for all 

required analyses used to determine the 

State’s LTS. The technical analyses and 

modeling used to develop the glide path 

and to support the LTS are consistent 

with EPA’s RHR, and interim and final 

EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA accepts 

the MANE–VU technical modeling to 

support the LTS and determine 

visibility improvement for the uniform 

rate of progress because the modeling 

system was chosen and used in 

accordance with EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA agrees with the MANE– 

VU model performance procedures and 

results, and that the CMAQ is an 

appropriate tool for the regional haze 

assessments for the New Jersey LTS and 

Regional Haze SIP. 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants 

to Visibility Impairment 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, MANE–VU 

developed emission sensitivity model 

runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility 

and air quality impacts from various 

groups of emissions and pollutant 

scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 

percent worst visibility days. 

MANE–VU’s contribution assessment 

demonstrated that sulfate is the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region. 

Sulfate particles commonly account for 

more than 50 percent of particle-related 

light extinction at northeastern Class I 

areas on the clearest days and for as 

much as or more than 80 percent on the 

haziest days. In particular, for the 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 

Class I area, on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days in 2000–2004, sulfate 

accounted for 66 percent of the particles 

responsible for light extinction. After 

sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently 

accounts for the next largest fraction of 

light extinction due to particles. Organic 

carbon accounted for 13 percent of light 

extinction on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days for Brigantine, followed 

by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of 

light extinction. 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by MANE–VU predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

MANE–VU region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. As a 

result of the dominant role of sulfate in 

the formation of regional haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region, 

MANE–VU concluded that an effective 

emissions management approach should 

rely heavily on broad-based regional 

SO2 control efforts in the eastern United 

States. EPA proposes to accept this 

conclusion as a reasonable strategy in 

the eastern United States where 

reductions in SO2 emissions will result 

in the greatest improvements in 

visibility. 

4. Reasonable Progress Goals 

New Jersey contains a Class I area, the 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 

Class I area, located on the New Jersey 

shoreline, north of Atlantic City. The 

RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires 

states to establish RPGs for each Class 

I area within the state (expressed in 

deciviews) that provide for reasonable 

progress towards achieving natural 

visibility. MANE–VU calculated the 

RPG for the Class I areas in the MANE– 

VU states, and the CMAQ projections of 

the effect of emission reductions on 

visibility in the target year at the end of 

the first period, 2018, as shown in Table 

4. 

TABLE 4—REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS AND PROJECTED FUTURE VISIBILITY FOR THE BRIGANTINE WILDERNESS AREA, 

DEVELOPED BY MANE–VU 

Baseline 

visibility 

(2000–2004) 

Natural 

background 

conditions for 

2064 

Reasonable 

progress 

goal for 2018 

2018 CMAQ 

projections 

20% Worst Days ...................................................................................... 29.0 12.2 25.1 25.1 

20% Best Days ........................................................................................ 14.3 5.5 14.3 12.2 

(All values expressed as deciviews—lower deciviews means better visibility.) 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49719 

From the MANE–VU analysis, New 

Jersey determined that if the MANE–VU 

states adopted certain measures, and 

states in the surrounding regions 

adopted similar measures, the Class I 

areas would meet the RPG for the first 

progress period ending in 2018. These 

measures for the MANE–VU states are: 

Implementation of BART requirements, 

a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions 

from 167 EGU emission points (or 

equivalent emission reduction) and a 

low sulfur fuel oil strategy. New Jersey 

adopted regulations sufficient to meet 

its contribution to the reduction of 

emissions needed to provide reasonable 

progress towards achieving natural 

visibility: A 90 percent or greater 

reduction in SO2 emissions from each of 

the four EGU stacks located in New 

Jersey, adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy, implementation of BART 

requirements during the first progress 

period, as well as continued evaluation 

of other control measures to reduce SO2

and NOX emissions. 

The MANE–VU states’ goal was to 

reduce SO2 emissions from the highest 

emission stacks in the eastern United 

States by 90 percent or, if it was 

infeasible to achieve that level of 

reduction, an alternative had to be 

identified that could include other point 

sources. In New Jersey, there are four of 

the 167 units identified by MANE–VU 

as having the highest emissions in the 

eastern United States. New Jersey has 

reduced emissions from these sources at 

each facility by more than 90 percent, 

thus meeting this portion of the 

reasonable progress measures. 

The modeling predicted that these 

emission control regulations would 

result in better visibility which would 

meet the 25.1 deciviews goal of 

reasonable progress by 2018 for the 

Brigantine Class I area. At the time of 

MANE–VU modeling, some of the other 

states with sources potentially 

impacting visibility, in the Class I areas 

in both New Jersey and the rest of the 

MANE–VU domain, had not yet made 

final control determinations for BART, 

and thus, these controls are not 

included in the modeling prepared by 

MANE–VU and used by New Jersey. At 

that time, not all of the emission 

reductions from New Jersey’s BARTeligible sources were included in the 

modeling. Any controls resulting from 

those determinations will provide 

additional emissions reductions and 

resulting visibility improvement, which 

give further assurances that New Jersey 

accomplished its share of emission 

reductions needed to RPGs at all Class 

I areas affected by New Jersey’s 

emissions. This modeling demonstrates 

that the 2018 base control scenario 

provides for an improvement in 

visibility equal to the uniform rate of 

progress for the Brigantine area Class I 

areas for the most impaired days over 

the period of the implementation plan 

and ensures no degradation in visibility 

for the least impaired days over the 

same period. 

The modeling supporting the analysis 

of these RPGs is consistent with EPA 

guidance prior to the CAIR remand. The 

regional haze provisions specify that a 

state may not adopt a RPG that 

represents less visibility improvement 

than is expected to result from other 

CAA requirements during the 

implementation period. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the CAIR 

states with Class I areas, like New 

Jersey, took into account emission 

reductions anticipated from CAIR in 

determining their 2018 RPGs. MANE– 

VU approximated the impact of CAIR by 

reducing emissions from 167 EGUs by 

ninety percent. But this reduction was 

larger, in total tons of emissions 

reduced, than the reductions expected 

from CAIR, so MANE–VU added 

emissions across the modeling domain 

to more closely approximate the 

emission reductions from CAIR. This 

way, MANE–VU States would not 

overestimate the RPG in case states used 

the CAIR program as their response to 

MANE–VU’s ‘‘ask’’ of ninety percent 

reductions from the 167 EGUs in the 

eastern United States. 

As discussed in Section I of this 

action, EPA anticipates that the CSAPR 

will result in similar or better 

improvements in visibility than those 

predicted from CAIR. Because the 

CSAPR was recently finalized, EPA does 

not know at this time how it will affect 

any individual Class I area and cannot 

accurately model future conditions 

based on its implementation. However, 

by the time New Jersey is required to 

undertake its five year progress review, 

it is likely that the impact of the 

CSAPR’s contribution to visibility 

impairment in Class I areas in New 

Jersey and other states will be 

meaningfully assessed. Since New 

Jersey implemented greater than ninety 

percent control at each of its EGUs that 

would have been subject to CAIR, which 

would exceed the emission reductions 

in New Jersey under CAIR or the 

CSAPR, it is likely that New Jersey will 

have contributed its share of reductions 

that were modeled to produce the RPG 

at New Jersey’s Class I area and other 

Class I areas impacted by New Jersey. If, 

for a particular Class I areas, these 

reductions do not provide similar or 

greater benefits than CAIR and meeting 

the RPGs at one of its Class I areas is in 

jeopardy, the State will be required to 

address this circumstance in its five 

year review. 

The RPG for the Class I area in New 

Jersey (and other states’ Class I areas 

affected by New Jersey) are based on 

modeled projections of future 

conditions that were developed using 

the best available information at the 

time the analysis was completed. While 

MANE–VU’s emission inventory used 

for modeling included estimates of 

future emission growth, projections can 

change as additional information 

regarding future conditions becomes 

available. It would be both impractical 

and resource-intensive to require a state 

to continually adjust the RPG every time 

an event affecting these future 

projections changed. At the same time, 

EPA established a requirement for a 

five-year, midcourse review and, if 

necessary, correction of the states’ 

regional haze plans. See 40 CFR 

52.308(g). New Jersey commits to the 

midcourse review and submitting 

revisions to the regional haze plan 

where necessary. 

Altogether, these emission controls— 

a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions 

from EGUs, emission reductions from 

boilers and a low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy—are reasonable measures for 

the reduction strategy required by EPA’s 

RHR. EPA agrees that, combined with 

New Jersey’s BART program, these 

reductions will provide the emission 

reductions New Jersey needs to meet its 

share of the improvements in visibility 

needed to meet the RPG goal for 

Brigantine and to assist visibility 

improvement at other Class I areas 

affected by New Jersey’s emissions. 

In order to address a timely 

implementation of BART, as described 

in Section IV.B.6. of this action, New 

Jersey established BART emissions 

limits for three facilities: PSEG Hudson 

Generating Station, Chevron Products 

and ConocoPhillips Bayway Refinery. 

For two other facilities, Amerada Hess 

Port Reading Refinery and Sunoco Eagle 

Point, New Jersey’s analyses determined 

that their emissions were lower than the 

250 tons per year threshold to make 

them eligible for emission reductions 

under BART. The BART limitations are 

already in effect for the BART-affected 

sources, except for additional controls 

for nitrogen oxides at the PSEG Hudson 

Generating Station, which will become 

effective no later than May 1, 2015. New 

Jersey is revising the permits for these 

sources to include the modifications 

needed to meet the BART requirements. 

In summary, New Jersey used the 

MANE–VU analysis which defined the 

reasonable progress goals, and 

reasonable measures. The reasonable 

measures analyses, considered the cost 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
49720 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

of compliance, the time necessary for 

compliance, the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts, and the 

remaining useful life of the existing 

sources subject to such requirements. 

Using input from the MANE–VU 

consultations, the benefits from the 

implementation of the identified 

measures were modeled to project the 

2018 visibility levels. These projections 

serve as the 2018 Reasonable Progress 

Goal. For the Brigantine Wilderness 

Area, the 2018 projection is 25.1 

deciviews. This projection meets the 

Uniform Rate of Progress goal developed 

per EPA’s RHR. 

Accordingly, EPA proposes to 

approve New Jersey’s RPG for the 

Brigantine Wilderness Area of the 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife 

Refuge, and proposes that New Jersey’s 

emission reductions will provide its 

share of the reductions needed to 

achieve the RPG at Brigantine, as well 

as other Class I areas in the Northeast 

United States. Letters from states with 

Class I areas affected by New Jersey’s 

emissions did not ask for any additional 

controls beyond those specified in the 

MANE–VU analyses. 

5. Subchapter 9—Sulfur In Fuels 

On September 20, 2010, New Jersey 

satisfied a commitment included in the 

Regional Haze SIP by adopting revisions 

to New Jersey Subchapter 9 which 

implements reductions in the sulfur 

content of fuel oil, which will aid in 

reducing sulfates that cause decreased 

visibility. This regulation will 

implement low sulfur fuel oil provisions 

that will reduce the amount of sulfur in 

fuel oils that are stored, offered for sale, 

sold, or exchanged in trade for use in 

New Jersey. On December 9, 2010, New 

Jersey submitted Subchapter 9 to EPA as 

a revision to its SIP. New Jersey 

completed all the administrative 

requirements for this rule, including a 

public hearing and response to 

comments. 

The sulfur in fuel limits in New 

Jersey’s rule are the same as the levels 

of control included in the MANE–VU 

analysis of reasonable controls for the 

haze SIP. MANE–VU included these 

controls in the modeling that showed 

that the Brigantine area would achieve 

the reasonable progress goals. 

The regulation will reduce the sulfur 

content in all distillate heating oil (No. 

2 and lighter) to 500 parts per million 

(ppm) by June 1, 2014 and to 15 ppm 

by July 1, 2016. New Jersey’s rule also 

reduces the sulfur content for No. 4 fuel 

oil to 2,500 ppm and No. 5, No. 6, and 

heavier fuel oils to 5,000 ppm for Zones 

1, 2, 3 and 5 and 3,000 ppm for Zones 

4 and 6 by July 1, 2014. By removing the 

sulfur in the fuel oils, sulfur oxide 

emissions and particulate emissions 

will be reduced which will benefit both 

the Regional Haze SIP and the 

attainment of the PM 2.5 national 

ambient air quality standard. 

Subchapter 9 has been included in New 

Jersey’s PM 2.5 SIP revision. 

Subchapter 9 also contains maximum 

allowable sulfur dioxide emission 

limits, expressed in pounds per million 

BTU, for those sources that chose to 

control their emissions with control 

devices. The compliance dates for these 

limits are the same as for the fuel oil 

compliance dates. Subchapter 9 

provides provisions for the optional use 

of an alternative emission control plan 

based on a mathematical combination 

that must first be approved by New 

Jersey. These provisions require that for 

each 24-hour period emissions will not 

exceed the quantity of sulfur dioxide 

expressed in pounds per million BTU 

gross heat input as set forth in 

Subchapter 9’s Tables 2A and 2B. 

Additional requirements must be 

satisfied including performing an air 

quality modeling analysis to insure that 

the national ambient air quality 

standards will not be exceeded. These 

provisions are designed to insure that 

the use of optional alternative emission 

controls plans will result in same or 

greater emission reductions. 

New Jersey completed all the 

administrative requirements for this 

rule, including a public hearing and 

addressed the public comments. Since 

New Jersey’s sulfur in fuel rule meets 

the sulfur limits in the MANE–VU 

‘‘ask,’’ and meets administrative 

requirements, EPA proposes to approve 

New Jersey’s Subchapter 9, for use in 

both the Regional Haze SIP and the PM 

2.5 SIP. 

6. BART 

BART is an element of New Jersey’s 

LTS, as well as a requirement to 

evaluate controls for older sources that 

affect Class I areas. The BART regional 

haze requirement consists of three steps: 

(a) Identification of all the BART 

eligible sources; (b) an assessment of 

whether the BART eligible sources are 

subject to BART; and (c) the 

determination of the BART controls. 

a. BART-Eligible Sources in New Jersey 

The first component of a BART 

evaluation is to identify all the BART 

eligible sources. The sources in Table 5 

were identified by New Jersey in its July 

2009 Regional Haze SIP and met the 

following criteria to be classified as 

BART eligible: 

• One or more emissions units at the 

facility are within one of the 26 

categories listed in the BART Guidelines 

(70 FR 39158–39159); 

• The emission unit(s) was in 

existence on August 7, 1977 and begun 

operation after August 6, 1962; 

• Potential emissions of SO2, NOX, 

and PM10 from subject units are 250 

tons or more per year. 

These criteria are from section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act, codified in 40 

CFR Part 51, Appendix Y. 

TABLE 5—BART-ELIGIBLE FACILITIES IDENTIFIED BY THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Source Pollutants Location (county) Facility I.D. 

PSEG—Hudson ............................................................. NOX, SO2, PM .............................. Hudson ......................................... 12202 

Chevron .......................................................................... NOX, SO2, PM .............................. Middlesex ..................................... 18058 

Amerada Hess ............................................................... NOX, SO2 ..................................... Middlesex ..................................... 17996 

ConocoPhillips ................................................................ NOX, PM, SO2 .............................. Union ............................................ 41805 

Sunoco Eagle Point ....................................................... NOX, PM, SO2 .............................. Gloucester .................................... 55781 

The BART Guidelines recommend 

addressing SO2, NOX, and PM10 as 

visibility-impairment pollutants. The 

Guidelines note that states can decide 

whether to evaluate VOC or ammonia 

emissions. New Jersey did not develop 

additional strategies for VOC or 

ammonia emissions in its SIP. EPA 

proposes to agree with New Jersey’s 

determination because of the lack of 

tools available to estimate emissions 

and subsequently model VOC and 

ammonia effects on visibility, and 

because New Jersey is aggressively 

addressing VOCs through its approved 

ozone SIPs. In summary, EPA agrees 

with New Jersey’s determination that 

SO2, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are the 

pollutants reasonably anticipated to 

contribute to visibility impairment to 

target under BART. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49721 

13U.S. District Court in New Jersey, Civil Action 

1:11–cv–1826(RMB–JS), see paragraph 14. 

The second component of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BART 

eligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area. 

As discussed in the BART guidelines, a 

state may choose to consider all BART 

eligible sources to be subject to BART 

(70 FR 39.161). The MANE–VU Board 

decided in June 2004 that because of the 

collective importance of BART sources, 

BART determinations should be made 

by the MANE–VU states for each BART 

eligible source. New Jersey followed this 

approach by identifying each of its 

BART eligible sources as subject to 

BART, (see Table 5 above), but found 

upon further review, that emissions 

from Amerada Hess and Sunoco Eagle 

Point made them ineligible for BART 

controls. In its March 2011 supplement 

to the RH SIP, New Jersey determined 

that for Amerada Hess and Sunoco Eagle 

Point, the permitted emissions for these 

BART-eligible facilities were less than 

the 250 tons per year threshold for each 

of the pollutants regulated under the 

Regional Haze regulations (see section 

169A(g)(7) of the Act). Therefore, New 

Jersey concluded they were not eligible 

for BART controls. 

b. Identification and Evaluation of 

Additional BART-Eligible Sources in 

New Jersey 

During EPA’s review of New Jersey’s 

July 2009 and March 2011 Regional 

Haze SIP, EPA discovered that two other 

facilities within the State had units that 

were BART eligible. These two facilities 

were not originally identified by New 

Jersey as BART eligible because the 

facilities indicated to the state that they 

planned to shut down. Later the 

facilities withdrew their requests. 

The first BART eligible source, Unit 

10 at Vineland Municipal Electric 

Utility’s Howard M. Down Station is 

under a Federal consent decree 13 to 

either install additional pollution 

control measures or to permanently shut 

down by September 1, 2012. On July 1, 

2011, Vineland’s Director submitted 

written certification to EPA and New 

Jersey that Unit 10 will be retired from 

service by September 1, 2012. Vineland 

is required to submit an application to 

modify its permit by July 30, 2011 and 

New Jersey will need to submit this 

element of the permit to EPA as a 

supplement to the RH SIP by November 

2011. Another Vineland source is a 

distillate fuel oil-fired emergency 

generator that is considered BART, but 

EPA agrees that it does not need 

additional controls because its 

emissions are small and the unit has not 

operated for at least 10 years. 

The second BART eligible facility is 

the BL England Generating Station 

owned by RC Cape May Holding. This 

facility has three electric generating 

units that are BART eligible—Units 1, 2 

and 3—as well as three support units 

including a coal handling system that 

supports the two coal-fired boilers, 

Units 1 and 2; a natural draft cooling 

tower that supports the oil fired boiler, 

Unit 3; and an emergency fire water 

diesel engine. Units 1 and 2 are subject 

to an amended Administrative Consent 

Order (ACO) by New Jersey that requires 

the units either to repower by December 

15, 2011 or meet performance standards 

by a date certain. Under the ACO, Unit 

1 is to add SCR controls for NOX, a 

scrubber for SO2 controls and upgrade 

the electrostatic precipitator to meet the 

new performance standards by 

December 15, 2013. EPA considers that 

by December 2013, if Unit 1 modifies to 

meet performance standards, it will be 

implementing maximum control 

measures for limiting emissions of NOX, 

SO2 and PM, which meets EPA’s BART 

requirements. Unit 2 is subject to an 

amended ACO with New Jersey to 

install selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) by May 1, 2012 to reduce 

emissions of NOX. Unit 2 currently 

implements controls for limiting SO2

emissions with wet scrubbers and PM 

emissions with electrostatic 

precipitators (ESP). EPA considers that, 

if the Unit 2 implements these NOX

controls by May 12, 2012, Unit 2 will be 

implementing maximum control 

measures for limiting emissions of NOX, 

SO2 and PM, and will meet EPA’s BART 

requirements. Unit 3 combusts No. 6 

Fuel Oil and primarily operates during 

the summer season on days when the 

demand for electricity is high. Since 

2008, the annual operating capacity has 

averaged about 3% and has not been 

more than 32% since 1999. This unit 

implements SNCR controls for NOX and 

is required to comply with a NOX

emission limit of 2.0 lb/MW-hr 

(equivalent to about 0.20 lb/MM BTU) 

by May 1, 2015. In addition, to control 

SO2 emission, this unit must combust 

fuel oil with a sulfur limit of 0.50% by 

July 1, 2014. EPA considers that, by May 

15, 2015, Unit 3 will be implementing 

maximum controls for limiting 

emissions of NOX, SO2 and PM and will 

meet EPA’s BART requirements. For the 

three remaining support systems (coal 

handling system, cooling tower, and the 

emergency diesel engine. EPA considers 

the existing operations to be BART. In 

addition, RC Cape May, has indicated it 

is evaluating the conversion of all three 

electric steam generating units to 

natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil. To the 

extent that RC Cape May decides to 

convert one or all of the units, New 

Jersey anticipates that RC Cape May 

would submit a specific proposal that 

addresses applicable requirements 

including BART. For additional details 

the reader is referred to the TSD. 

c. BART Evaluations for Sources 

Identified as BART by New Jersey 

The final component of a BART 

evaluation is making BART 

determinations for all BART subject 

sources. In making BART 

determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of 

the Act requires that states consider the 

following factors: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility that may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. However, a 

source that implements the maximum 

feasible level of control for its emissions 

has met the BART requirements, and no 

further analysis is needed. Conversely, a 

source that limits its emissions via an 

enforceable permit limit no longer needs 

to be subject to BART review. 

NJDEP properly determined that 

Chevron Products, ConocoPhillips 

Bayway Refinery, and PSEG Hudson 

Generating Station are subject to BART 

review. Chevron Products is reducing its 

annual combustion limit to bring the 

facility’s potential to emit NOX to less 

than 250 tons per year (tpy) by March 

15, 2011, so no pollutants exceed the 

BART threshold and Chevron Products 

will not be subject to further BART 

analyses. The ConocoPhillips Bayway 

Refinery has NOX, SO2, and PM 

controls, emission limits, averaging 

times, and compliance dates in a 

Federally enforceable consent decree 

with New Jersey and EPA. Also, the 

consent decree requires all the BARTqualified process heaters at the Bayway 

facility to eliminate oil burning, and to 

only burn refinery fuel gas with 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S) content less than 

162 ppmvd in compliance with NSPS 

subpart J. New Jersey expects full 

implementation by June 30, 2011. EPA 

proposes approval of these BART 

evaluations since they were based on 

maximum feasible controls or a multifactor analysis. 

PSEG Hudson Generating Station has 

two boilers serving electric generating 

units (E1 and E2) and two coal handling 

systems (E22 and E23) that are subject 

to BART review. One boiler is coal-fired 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
49722 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(E2) and subject to controls and 

Federally enforceable emission limits 

effective December 31, 2010, due to a 

Federally enforceable consent decree. 

The other boiler (E1) primarily 

combusts natural gas but is also 

permitted to burn No. 6 fuel oil. 

At PSEG, the coal receiving system 

(E22) and the coal reclaim system (E23) 

are support systems to coal-fired boiler 

E2 with the potential to emit particulate 

emissions only. The conveying systems 

are covered and the coal piles are 

controlled with a water dust 

suppression system. New Jersey 

determined that the new selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) and existing 

low NOX burners (LNBs), new flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD), and new bag 

house air pollution control systems for 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and particulate matter (PM), 

respectively, for coal-fired boiler E2, 

and the existing PM controls for the two 

coal handling systems, are BART. In 

addition PSEG has submitted an 

application to modify the Hudson 

operating permit to include the 

following more stringent NOX emission 

limits: 1.0 lb/MW-hr when burning 

natural gas and 2.0 lb/MW-hr when 

burning No. 6 fuel oil, with a 

compliance date of May 1, 2015, to 

coincide with the requirements of the 

revised NOX rule at N.J.A.C. 7:27–19.4 

Table 3 for E1; and to only burn No. 6 

fuel oil, already restricted to 0.3% sulfur 

by weight, in this boiler when natural 

gas is curtailed, effective upon approval 

of the permit modification but no later 

than December 31, 2011. 

New Jersey’s BART requirements 

must be included as operating permit 

conditions in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 70, and the State regulations 

promulgated at N.J.A.C. 7:27–22. 

Chevron, PSEG Hudson, and 

ConocoPhillips have submitted timely 

permit modification applications to 

incorporate the BART requirements. 

New Jersey has approved the permit 

modifications for Chevron and PSEG 

Hudson and has proposed the permit 

modifications for ConocoPhillips. When 

all permit modifications are completed, 

New Jersey will submit all of the BART 

determinations and associated 

documents and permits to EPA as 

source-specific SIP revisions. 

EPA has reviewed New Jersey’s BART 

determinations for all of the BART 

eligible sources, including all 

supporting documentation, information 

and proposed permit modifications. 

New Jersey has requested public 

comment on the proposed permit 

modifications, which identify the 

required BART controls, and the 

comment periods have closed. New 

Jersey is in the process of addressing 

any comments received and issuing the 

permit modifications in final form. EPA 

proposes to approve New Jersey’s BART 

determinations, including the sourcespecific permit modifications as 

proposed by New Jersey. 

This proposed approval is being 

proposed under a procedure called 

parallel processing, whereby EPA 

proposes rulemaking action 

concurrently with the state’s procedures 

for amending its regulations or in this 

instance amending source specific 

operating permits. If the proposed 

operating permit revisions are 

substantially changed in areas other 

than those identified in this document, 

EPA will evaluate those changes and 

may publish another notice of proposed 

rulemaking. If no substantial changes 

are made other than those areas cited in 

this document, EPA will publish a final 

rulemaking on the revisions. The final 

rulemaking action by EPA will occur 

only after the SIP revision has been 

adopted by New Jersey and submitted 

formally to EPA for incorporation into 

the SIP. 

EPA proposes to approve New Jersey’s 

BART requirements based on the BART 

determinations discussed above and the 

respective BART limitations on 

emissions, source operation and fuel 

use. New Jersey’s BART determinations 

contain the appropriate regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the sources. Lastly, 

New Jersey’s BART determinations 

require BART controls be installed and 

in operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

Regional Haze SIP, as required in the 

CAA and in the RHR. 

C. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU 

State Air Directors adopted the InterRPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation 

Framework that documented the 

consultation process within the context 

of regional haze planning, intended to 

create greater certainty and 

understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU 

States held ten consultation meetings 

and/or conference calls from March 1, 

2007 through March 21, 2008. In 

addition to MANE–VU members 

attending these meetings and conference 

calls, participants from VISTAS, 

Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal 

Land Managers also attended. In 

addition to the conference calls and 

meeting, the FLMs were given the 

opportunity to review and comment on 

each of the technical documents 

developed by MANE–VU. No additional 

measures beyond those developed as 

part of the MANE–VU ‘‘ask’’ were 

recommended by other states or the 

FLMs. 

New Jersey consulted with the FLMs 

at a meeting that EPA Region 2 attended 

on October 20, 2009 during the 

development of the Regional Haze SIP. 

New Jersey submitted the draft plan for 

review by the FLMs for the required 

ninety-day review period before New 

Jersey submitted the Regional Haze SIP 

to EPA and responded to their 

comments in their response to 

comments document in Appendix O–3 

in the Haze SIP. These actions fulfill 

EPA’s requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

A public hearing on this proposed SIP 

revision was held on October 27, 2008 

at the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection Public 

Hearing Room, Trenton, New Jersey. 

Written comments relevant to the 

proposal were accepted through 

November 28, 2008. The only comments 

were submitted by USEPA, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and one of the potential 

BART sources. New Jersey responded to 

the comments, as listed in Appendix 

O–3 of New Jersey’s Regional Haze Plan. 

New Jersey commits in its SIP to 

ongoing consultation with the FLMs on 

regional haze issues throughout the 

implementation of the Regional Haze 

SIP as required in 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4). 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

New Jersey commits to revise and 

submit a regional haze implementation 

plan by July 31, 2018 to address the next 

ten years of progress toward the national 

goal in the Act of eliminating manmade 

haze by 2064, and to submit a plan 

every ten years thereafter, in accordance 

with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) of the Federal rule for regional 

haze. To meet this commitment, New 

Jersey expects to rely on the 

collaborative regional organization 

efforts such as MANE–VU. New Jersey 

commits to address the following in its 

Mid-Course Review report: Address any 

uncertainties encountered during 

regional haze planning process; report 

on the progress of the BART analysis, 

determinations, and implementation; 

report on the progress of the Low Sulfur 

Fuel Strategy; report on whether 

additional potential actions identified in 

its plan will be implemented and the 

status of those efforts. The reasonable 

progress report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the RPGs for the 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 

Class I area, located in New Jersey. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49723 

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

In its Regional Haze Plan, New Jersey 

committed to review the impact of 

proposed sources on visibility under 40 

CFR 52.26 and 52.28, by implementing 

the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit requirements 

for new or modified major sources of air 

pollutants located within 100 kilometers 

of the Class I area, or within a larger 

radius on a case-by-case basis, in 

accordance with all applicable Federal 

rules for review of the impacts on Class 

I areas. New Jersey’s PSD program 

prevents new and modified sources 

from significantly impacting visibility. 

The PSD program includes a 

requirement that evaluates the new 

source’s visibility impact on any nearby 

Class I areas (Brigantine in New Jersey’s 

case). 

On June 27, 2011, as part of its 

acceptance of the PSD delegation from 

EPA, New Jersey reaffirmed its 

commitment to notify the Federal Land 

Manager of new sources that may 

impact the Class I area, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 52.21(p). 

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

The primary monitoring network for 

regional haze in New Jersey is the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environment (IMPROVE) 

network. There is currently one 

IMPROVE site in New Jersey, in the 

Brigantine Wilderness Area of the 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife 

Refuge. IMPROVE monitoring data from 

2000–2004 serves as the baseline for the 

regional haze program, and is relied 

upon in the July 28, 2009 regional haze 

submittal. Data produced by the 

IMPROVE monitoring network are 

essential for the verification of the 

effects of changes in emissions on 

visibility in Class I areas and will be 

needed for preparing the 5-year progress 

reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, 

each of which relies on analysis of the 

preceding five years of data. In addition, 

New Jersey operates a comprehensive 

PM2.5 network of filter-based Federal 

reference method monitors, continuous 

mass monitors, filter based speciated 

monitors and the continuous speciated 

monitors. 

New Jersey will continue to operate 

and maintain the monitoring site at the 

Brigantine Wilderness Area. EPA will 

continue its discussions with New 

Jersey during the course of periodic 

network reviews on the location of the 

monitors and the number of monitors in 

its monitoring network. 

New Jersey committed to continuing 

to submit periodic emission inventories, 

a mid-course review and a revised plan 

for the next ten-year period starting in 

2018. 

V. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve a 

revision to New Jersey’s State 

Implementation Plan submitted on July 

28, 2009, that addressed progress 

toward reducing regional haze for the 

first implementation period ending in 

2018. The submittal was augmented by 

submittals on December 9, 2010 with 

New Jersey’s adopted regulation 

lowering the sulfur content in fuel and 

on March 2, 2011 which included BART 

determinations and controls. EPA is 

proposing to determine that New 

Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP contains the 

emission reductions needed to achieve 

New Jersey’s share of emission 

reductions that were determined to be 

reasonable through the regional 

planning process. Furthermore, New 

Jersey’s Regional Haze Plan ensures that 

emissions from the State will not 

interfere with the reasonable progress 

goals for neighboring States’ Class I 

areas. Thus, EPA is proposing that the 

Regional Haze Plan submitted by New 

Jersey satisfies the requirements of the 

CAA. EPA is taking this action pursuant 

to those provisions of the Act. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document and 

will consider these comments before 

taking final action. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

approve New Jersey’s Subchapter 9, 

Sulfur in Fuel rule, which is one of the 

measures needed to fulfill New Jersey’s 

Reasonable Progress Plan. 

This proposed approval is being 

proposed under a procedure called 

parallel processing, whereby EPA 

proposes rulemaking action 

concurrently with the state’s procedures 

for amending its regulations or in this 

instance amending source specific 

operating permits to incorporate BART. 

If the proposed operating permit 

revisions are substantially changed in 

areas other than those identified in this 

action, EPA will evaluate those changes 

and may publish another notice of 

proposed rulemaking. If no substantial 

changes are made other than those areas 

cited in this action, EPA will publish a 

final rulemaking on the revisions. The 

final rulemaking action by EPA will 

occur only after the SIP revision has 

been adopted by New Jersey and 

submitted formally to EPA for 

incorporation into the SIP. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

approving New Jersey’s Regional Haze 

Plan does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP does not apply to Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
49724 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 2, 2011. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20482 Filed 8–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS