[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49711-49724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20482]



[[Page 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:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ecbb899e82899ec2be8d9581838288ac899c8dc28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d98ebcabb7bcabf78bb8a0b4b6b7bd99bca9b8f7beb6af">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Fax: 212-637-3901.
    <bullet> Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
    <bullet> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c5759505045125e535e7c594c5d125b534a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfb4bab3b3a6f1bdb0bd9fbaafbef1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 49712]]

    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 recommendation\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) (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

[[Page 49713]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 49714]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), and 
PM. The BART Guidelines direct states to use their best judgment in 
determining whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia 
(NH<INF>3</INF>) 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.

[[Page 49715]]

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 state-specific 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 BART-Eligible Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, 
Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, and Pulp Facilities.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/documents/
contributions-to-regional-haze-in-the-northeast-and-mid-atlantic--
united-states/.
    \7\ MANE-VU Report at http://www.otcair.org/manevu/Document.asp?fview=Reports.
    \8\ NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-final-memo-06-28-07.pdf/.
    \9\ NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 
SO<INF>2</INF>. The BART guidelines direct states to exercise judgment 
in deciding whether VOC and NH<INF>3</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 
SO<INF>2</INF>.
    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:
    <bullet> Coal and oil-fired EGUs;
    <bullet> Point and area source industrial, commercial and 
institutional (ICI) boilers;
    <bullet> Cement and Lime Kilns;
    <bullet> Heating oil; and
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 49716]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ MANE-VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress Goals. February 7, 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) off-road 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. On-road 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 MACT-equivalent 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in 2018 (i.e., one to two percent of the 
projected 2018 SO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> and coarse particulate 
matter (PM<INF>10</INF>) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MANE-VU States' goal was to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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

[[Page 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,     Direct PM2.5 and NOX reductions.
                                    2007.
High Electrical Demand Day units.  Rule adopted March 20,   SO2 and NOX reductions.
                                    2009.
Oil and gas Fired Electric         Rule adopted March 20,   NOX reductions.
 Generating Units (EGUs).           2009.
Sewage Sludge Incinerators.......  Rule adopted March 20,   NOX reductions.
                                    2009.
Case by Case NOX Emission Limit    Rule adopted March 20,   NOX reductions.
 Determinations (FSELs/AELs).       2009.
Glass Manufacturing..............  Rule adopted March 20,   NOX reductions but most benefits will occur post-
                                    2009.                    2010.
Municipal Waste Combustor          Rule adopted March 20,   NOX reductions.
 (Incinerator) NOX Rule.            2009.
Asphalt Production Plants........  Rule adopted March 20,   NOX reductions.
                                    2009.
Diesel Smoke (I/M Cutpoint) Rule   Rule adopted April 3,    PM2.5 and NOX reductions.
 Changes.                           2009.
Onroad New Jersey Low Emission     Adopted November 28,     VOC, NOX, SO2, and direct PM2.5 reductions.
 Vehicle (LEV) Program.             2005.
Energy Master Plan...............  Finalized October 22, 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal measures and other control programs relied upon by New 
Jersey include EPA's NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 49718]]

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 in-depth 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for 
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, 
PM<INF>2.5,</INF> 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Natural
                                                  Baseline        background       Reasonable       2018 CMAQ
                                                 visibility     conditions for   progress  goal    projections
                                                (2000-2004)          2064           for 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.)


[[Page 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions.
    The MANE-VU states' goal was to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> 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 BART-
eligible 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

[[Page 49720]]

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:
    <bullet> One or more emissions units at the facility are within one 
of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158-39159);
    <bullet> The emission unit(s) was in existence on August 7, 1977 
and begun operation after August 6, 1962;
    <bullet> Potential emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM<INF>10</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
PM<INF>10</INF>, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> are the pollutants reasonably 
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment to target under 
BART.

[[Page 49721]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. District Court in New Jersey, Civil Action 1:11-cv-
1826(RMB-JS), see paragraph 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
NO<INF>X</INF>, a scrubber for SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF>. Unit 2 currently implements controls for limiting 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions with wet scrubbers and PM emissions with 
electrostatic precipitators (ESP). EPA considers that, if the Unit 2 
implements these NO<INF>X</INF> controls by May 12, 2012, Unit 2 will 
be implementing maximum control measures for limiting emissions of 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and is required to comply with a 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit of 2.0 lb/MW-hr (equivalent to about 0.20 
lb/MM BTU) by May 1, 2015. In addition, to control SO<INF>2</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, 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 BART-
qualified process heaters at the Bayway facility to eliminate oil 
burning, and to only burn refinery fuel gas with hydrogen sulfide 
(H<INF>2</INF>S) 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 multi-factor 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

[[Page 49722]]

(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 NO<INF>X</INF> burners (LNBs), new 
flue gas desulfurization (FGD), and new bag house air pollution control 
systems for oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>), sulfur dioxide 
(SO<INF>2</INF>) 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 source-specific 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 Inter-
RPO 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.

[[Page 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    <bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
    <bullet> 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.

[[Page 49724]]

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>