78650 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

written obligation of assignment from 

one person or party to another person or 

party. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 11.6 by re-designating 

paragraph (d) as (e) and adding a new 

paragraph (d). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 11.6 Registration of attorneys and 

agents. 

* * * * * 

(d) Design patent practitioners. Any 

citizen of the United States who is an 

attorney and who fulfills the 

requirements of this part may be 

registered as a design patent attorney to 

practice before the Office in design 

patent proceedings. Any citizen of the 

United States who is not an attorney, 

and who fulfills the requirements of this 

part may be registered as a design patent 

agent to practice before the Office in 

design patent proceedings. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 11.8 by revising paragraph 

(b) to read as follows: 

§ 11.8 Oath and registration fee. 

* * * * * 

(b) An individual shall not be 

registered as an attorney under § 11.6(a), 

registered as an agent under § 11.6(b) or 

(c), registered as a design patent 

practitioner under § 11.6(d), or granted 

limited recognition under § 11.9(b) 

unless, within two years of the mailing 

date of a notice of passing the 

registration examination or of a waiver 

of the examination, the individual files 

with the OED Director a completed Data 

Sheet, an oath or declaration prescribed 

by the USPTO Director, and the 

registration fee set forth in § 1.21(a)(2) of 

this subchapter. An individual seeking 

registration as an attorney under 

§ 11.6(a) must provide a certificate of 

good standing of the bar of the highest 

court of a State that is no more than six 

months old. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 11.10 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text and 

(b)(2) introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 11.10 Restrictions on practice in patent 

matters; former and current Office 

employees; government employees. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) To not knowingly act as an agent, 

attorney, or design patent practitioner 

for or otherwise represent any other 

person: 

* * * * * 

(2) To not knowingly act within two 

years after terminating employment by 

the Office as agent, attorney, or design 

patent practitioner for, or otherwise 

represent any other person: 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 11.16 by revising 

paragraph (c)(1)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 11.16 Requirements for admission to the 

USPTO Law School Clinic Certification 

Program. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Be registered under § 11.6(a) or (b) 

as a patent practitioner in active status 

and good standing with OED; 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Amend § 11.704 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 11.704 Communication of fields of 

practice and specialization. 

* * * * * 

(b) A registered practitioner under 

§ 11.6(a) who is an attorney may use the 

designation ‘‘Patents,’’ ‘‘Patent 

Attorney,’’ ‘‘Patent Lawyer,’’ 

‘‘Registered Patent Attorney,’’ or a 

substantially similar designation. A 

registered practitioner under § 11.6(b) 

who is not an attorney may use the 

designation ‘‘Patents,’’ ‘‘Patent Agent,’’ 

‘‘Registered Patent Agent,’’ or a 

substantially similar designation. A 

registered practitioner under § 11.6(d) 

who is an attorney may use the 

designation ‘‘Design Patent Attorney.’’ A 

registered practitioner under § 11.6(d) 

who is not an attorney may use the 

designation ‘‘Design Patent Agent.’’ 

Unless authorized by § 11.14(b), a 

registered patent agent or design patent 

agent shall not hold themself out as 

being qualified or authorized to practice 

before the Office in trademark matters or 

before a court. 

* * * * * 

PART 41—PRACTICE BEFORE THE 

PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 

■ 12. The authority citation for part 41 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 3(a)(2)(A), 21, 

23, 32, 41, 134, 135, and Pub. L. 112–29. 

■ 13. Amend § 41.106 by revising 

paragraph (f)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 41.106 Filing and service. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) A certificate made by a person 

other than a registered practitioner must 

be in the form of an affidavit. 

Kathi Vidal, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25234 Filed 11–15–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2020–0432; FRL–10121– 

02–R2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Jersey; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan for the Second 

Implementation Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the regional 

haze Staet implementation plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by New Jersey on 

March 26, 2020, as satisfying applicable 

requirements under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) for the program’s second 

implementation period. New Jersey’s 

SIP submission addresses the 

requirement that states must 

periodically revise their long-term 

strategies for making reasonable 

progress towards the national goal of 

preventing any future, and remedying 

any existing, anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility, including regional haze, in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas. The 

SIP submission also addresses other 

applicable requirements for the second 

implementation period of the regional 

haze program. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 18, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R02–OAR–2020–0432. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 78651 

1 ‘‘Q/d’’ is emissions (Q) in tons per year, 

typically of one or a combination of visibility 

impairing pollutants, divided by distance to a class 

I area (d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is 

commonly used as a metric to assess a source’s 

potential visibility impacts on a particular class I 

area. 

available electronically through https:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Ferreira, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, 

New York, New York 10007–1866, 

telephone number: (212) 637–3127, 

email address: ferreira.nicholas@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Evaluation of Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On March 26, 2020, the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP 

to address regional haze for the second 

implementation period. NJDEP 

supplemented its SIP submission on 

September 8, 2020, and April 1, 2021. 

NJDEP made this SIP submission to 

satisfy the requirements of the CAA’s 

regional haze program pursuant to CAA 

sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 

51.308. 

On August 19, 2022, the EPA 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) in which the EPA 

proposed to approve New Jersey’s 

March 26, 2020, SIP submission, as 

supplemented on September 8, 2020, 

and April 1, 2021, as satisfying the 

regional haze requirements for the 

second implementation period 

contained in the CAA and 40 CFR 

51.308. See 87 FR 51016. The EPA is 

now determining that the New Jersey 

regional haze SIP submission for the 

second implementation period meets 

the applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements and is thus approving 

New Jersey’s submission into its SIP. 

II. Evaluation of Comments 

In response to the NPRM, the EPA 

received eight comments, seven of 

which were unique, during the 30-day 

public comment period and is providing 

responses to the comments that were 

received. The specific comments may be 

viewed under Docket ID Number EPA– 

R02–OAR–2020–0432 on the https://

www.regulations.gov website. 

Comment: Several commentors, 

including MANE–VU, the Tennessee 

Department of Environment & 

Conservation, and the National Park 

Service (NPS), support EPA’s proposal 

to approve New Jersey’s regional haze 

Staet implementation plan (SIP). One 

commenter, MANE–VU, also states that 

it supports EPA’s thorough approach in 

reviewing New Jersey’s SIP, including 

its response to each MANE–VU Ask. 

Response: EPA appreciates and agrees 

with the commentors. 

Comment: Several commentors, 

including the Tennessee Department of 

Environment & Conservation, Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

and North Carolina Division of Air 

Quality, acknowledge EPA’s assessment 

and agree with EPA’s determination that 

the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 

cannot include strategies for upwind 

states that those upwind states have not 

adopted. 

Response: As noted in the NPRM, 

§ 51.308(f)(3)(i) specifies that RPGs must 

reflect ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures required under 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section’’ 

(emphasis added). RPGs are intended to 

provide a snapshot of projected 

visibility conditions at the end of the 

implementation period, assuming all 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress at a given class I 

area are being implemented. The 

emission reduction measures that must 

be reflected in RPGs include adopted 

regulations and measures that both the 

downwind and upwind states have 

identified as necessary and that will be 

implemented by 2028. However, EPA 

interprets this provision to exclude 

emission reduction measures that 

downwind states believe are necessary 

to make reasonable progress but that 

upwind states have not, at the time of 

plan submission, determined are 

necessary pursuant to § 51.308(f)(2). 

This ensures that RPGs include only 

those measures that are reasonably 

certain to be implemented. 

New Jersey’s 2028 RPGs include 

measures for upwind states that, as of 

now, have not been determined to be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

by those upwind states and are not 

currently included in their long-term 

strategies. Therefore, those RPGs in the 

New Jersey SIP do not represent 

implementation of the measures 

required under § 51.308(f)(2) and, as a 

result, do not accurately represent RPGs 

for Brigantine Wilderness. New Jersey’s 

2028 most impaired base case of 18.16 

deciviews reflects the visibility 

conditions that are projected to be 

achieved based on states’ existing 

measures. As such, EPA considers the 

2028 modeled base case value of 18.16 

deciviews to be a more appropriate, 

conservative estimate of the RPG for the 

20% most impaired visibility days as it 

does not inappropriately rely on highly 

uncertain upwind emissions reductions. 

Comment: The commentor, NPS, 

expresses concern over the use of 

MANE–VU’s contribution threshold to 

identify the Class 1 areas New Jersey 

impacts beyond its boundaries and 

believes this threshold is not adequately 

protective of cumulative visibility 

impacts at Class 1 areas outside of the 

Staet. The commentor also states that it 

supports EPA’s recognition that New 

Jersey emission sources contribute to 

visibility impairment for Class I areas 

beyond the Staet’s boundaries, 

including at Shenandoah National Park 

in Virginia. 

Response: In the NPRM, EPA did not 

expressly determine and explicitly state 

that New Jersey significantly contributes 

to visibility impairment for Class I areas 

beyond its boundaries, including at 

Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. 

Regarding the analysis and 

determinations concerning New Jersey’s 

contribution to visibility impairment at 

out-of-state Class I areas, the MANE–VU 

technical work focuses on the 

magnitude of visibility impacts from 

certain New Jersey emissions on its 

Class I area and other nearby Class I 

areas. Nevertheless, as explained in the 

NPRM, the analyses this rulemaking is 

based on did not account for all 

emissions and all components of 

visibility impairment (e.g., primary PM 

emissions, and impairment from fine 

PM, elemental carbon, and organic 

carbon). In addition, as stated in the 

NPRM, ‘‘Q/d’’ analyses 1 with a 

relatively simplistic accounting for 

wind trajectories and CALPUFF being 

applied to a very limited set of electric 

generating units (EGUs) and major 

industrial sources of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) are not 

scientifically rigorous tools capable of 

evaluating contribution to visibility 

impairment from all emissions in a 

Staet. Furthermore, we note in the 

NPRM that the 2 percent or greater 

sulfate-plus-nitrate threshold used to 

determine whether New Jersey 

emissions contribute to visibility 

impairment at a particular Class I area 

may be higher than what EPA believes 

is an ‘‘extremely low triggering 

threshold’’ intended by the statute and 

regulations. 

In sum, as discussed in the NPRM, 

based on the information provided in 

the SIP submission, emissions from 

New Jersey do contribute to visibility 

impairment at Brigantine Wilderness 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
78652 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

2Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans for the Second 

Implementation Period. The EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park (July 8, 2021). https://www.epa.gov/system/ 

files/documents/2021-07/clarificationsregardingregional-haze-state-implementationplans-for-thesecond-implementation-period.pdf. 

3See April 2021 Supplemental Information for 

New Jersey’s March 2020 Regional Haze SIP at 4– 

7. 

4See N.J.A.C. 7:27–19.20 ‘‘Fuel switching.’’ 

5See N.J.A.C. 7:27–8.12 ‘‘State of the art’’ and 

N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.35 ‘‘Advances in the art of air 

pollution control.’’ 

6See N.J.A.C. 7:27–18 ‘‘Control and Prohibition of 

Air Pollution from New or Altered Sources 

Affecting Ambient Air Quality (Emission Offset 

Rules).’’ 

7See N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.1, defining ‘‘Modify’’ or 

‘‘modification’’ as ‘‘means any physical change in, 

or change in the method of operation of, existing 

equipment or control apparatus that increases the 

amount of actual emissions of any air contaminant 

emitted by that equipment or control apparatus or 

that results in the emission of any air contaminant 

not previously emitted. This term shall not include 

and have relatively minor contributions 

to other out-of-state Class I areas. 

However, as we indicated in the NPRM, 

due to the low triggering threshold 

intended by the CAA and the RHR and 

the lack of rigorous modeling analyses, 

EPA does not necessarily agree with 

New Jersey’s conclusion that, based on 

a 2% contribution threshold, it does not 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

any Class I areas outside the Staet. 

While New Jersey noted that the 

contributions from several states outside 

the MANE–VU region are significantly 

larger than its own, we again clarify that 

each Staet is obligated under the CAA 

and the RHR to address regional haze 

visibility impairment resulting from 

emissions from within the State, 

irrespective of whether another Staet’s 

contribution is greater. See 

‘‘Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plans for the 

Second implementation Period,’’ dated 

July 8, 2021 (‘‘2021 Clarifications 

Memo’’).2

Comment: The commentor, National 

Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), 

states that EPA’s final action must make 

clear that reliance on the MANE–VU 

analysis alone is inadequate to satisfy 

the Regional Haze Rule. The commentor 

expresses concern that (1) the MANE– 

VU 3.0 Mm-1 threshold for defining 

sources to evaluate for additional 

controls to achieve reasonable progress 

towards the national visibility goal and 

(2) the two percent threshold New 

Jersey employed based on MANE–VU 

are unreasonably high. 

Response: As explained in the NPRM, 

EPA does not necessarily agree that the 

3.0 inverse megameters (Mm¥1) 

visibility impact is a reasonable 

threshold for source selection. The RHR 

recognizes that, due to the nature of 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

numerous and sometimes relatively 

small sources may need to be selected 

and evaluated for implementation of 

control measures to make reasonable 

progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo 

at 4. As explained in the 2021 

Clarifications Memo, while states have 

discretion to choose any source 

selection threshold that is reasonable, 

‘‘[a] state that relies on a visibility (or 

proxy for visibility impact) threshold to 

select sources for four-factor analysis 

should set the threshold at a level that 

captures a meaningful portion of the 

state’s total contribution to visibility 

impairment to Class I areas.’’ See 2021 

Memo at 3. In this case, the 3.0 Mm¥1

threshold identified only one source in 

New Jersey (and only 22 across the 

entire MANE–VU region), indicating 

that it may in some cases be 

unreasonably high. Since MANE–VU’s 

threshold identified only one source in 

New Jersey for four-factor analysis, we 

do not in this case necessarily agree that 

a 3.0 Mm¥1 threshold for selecting 

sources for four-factor analysis results in 

a set of sources the evaluation of which 

has the potential to meaningfully reduce 

the Staet’s contribution to visibility 

impairment. 

In this particular instance, we 

proposed to find that New Jersey’s 

additional information and explanation 

indicated that the State had in fact 

examined a reasonable set of sources, 

including sources flagged by the federal 

land managers (FLMs), and reasonably 

concluded that four-factor analyses for 

its top-impacting sources were not 

necessary because the outcome would 

be that no further emission reductions 

would be reasonable. EPA based the 

proposed finding on the State’s 

examination of its largest operating 

EGUs and its industrial commercial 

institutional (ICI) boilers, at the time of 

SIP submission, and on the emissions 

from and controls that apply to those 

sources, as well as on New Jersey’s 

existing SIP-approved NOX and SO2

rules that effectively control emissions 

from the largest contributing stationarysource sectors.3

Comment: The commentor, NPCA, 

asserts that, contrary to the CAA’s 

requirement, SIP measures, including 

stationary source emission limitations, 

must be practically enforceable and 

approved into the SIP. Additionally, the 

commentor notes EPA’s proposal 

explains that for MANE–VU’s Ask 4, the 

State’s reliance and use of this Ask, 

which includes unspecified provisions 

that either are or will be in stationary 

source permits, is approvable ‘‘as being 

part of the region’s strategy for making 

reasonable progress.’’ NPCA states that 

EPA must not approve this element of 

the proposed SIP because the permit 

provisions in construction and 

operating permits neither are nor will be 

in the SIP. 

Response: EPA’s approval of New 

Jersey’s regional haze SIP is based on 

the fact the submission satisfies the 

applicable regulatory requirements for 

the second planning period in 40 CFR 

51.308(f), (g), and (i). The applicable 

regulatory requirements include that 

states must evaluate and determine the 

emission reduction measures which are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

by considering the four statutory factors, 

and that the measures that are necessary 

for reasonable progress must be in the 

SIP. EPA’s NPRM explains that MANE– 

VU’s Asks 2 and 3 engage with these 

requirements. EPA’s proposal further 

explains that the measures in the State’s 

SIP, and the related explanations it 

provided in its SIP submission, satisfy 

those Asks and therefore the applicable 

regulatory requirements. EPA’s approval 

is therefore based on its determination 

that New Jersey’s response to Asks 2 

and 3 satisfy the reasonable progress 

requirements. To the extent that MANE– 

VU and the State regard the measures in 

Asks 1 and 4 through 6 as being part of 

the long term strategy for making 

reasonable progress, it was reasonable 

for New Jersey to address those Asks in 

its SIP submission. 

As articulated in EPA’s NPRM, Ask 4 

requests that MANE–VU states pursue 

updating permits, enforceable 

agreements, and/or rules to lock-in 

lower emission rates for sources larger 

than 250 million British Thermal Units 

(MMBtu) per hour that have switched to 

lower emitting fuels. New Jersey’s 

federally approved SIP for NOX

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) limits the capability of a subject 

facility to switch to higher emitting 

fuels.4 Furthermore, New Jersey’s 

federally approved sulfur regulations in 

their SIP, provide that any source that 

combusts solid fuel and that is 

constructed, installed, reconstructed or 

modified, is also subject to New Jersey’s 

state-of-the-art requirements,5 lowest 

achievable emission rate requirements,6

and best available control technology 

requirements at 40 CFR 52.21. In 

addition, modified units in New Jersey 

are required to amend their permits 

through the New Source Review (NSR) 

process if they plan to switch back to 

coal or a fuel that will increase 

emissions. A change in fuel would be a 

modification.7 New Jersey’s operating 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 78653 

normal repair and maintenance. A modification 

may be incorporated into an operating permit 

through a significant modification, a minor 

modification, or a seven-day-notice change.’’ 

8See N.J.A.C. 7:27–22 ‘‘Operating Permits.’’ 

9See EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental 

Justice, May 2022, available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20

Legal%20Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf at 

35–36. 

10See Appendix K of docket EPA–R02–OAR– 

2020–0432. 

11https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/ 

E.O.-23.pdf. 

12See 87 FR 51020–23. 

13See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection 

of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for 

State Plans; Proposed Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 

2016), Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0531, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019 

Guidance at 36–37. 

permits regulations require that an 

application to modify the permit be 

submitted prior to the change in fuel.8

Given the permitting and regulatory 

requirements outlined above, the EPA 

finds that New Jersey reasonably 

determined it had satisfied Ask 4. 

Comment: Sierra Club and NPCA 

comment that EPA must thoroughly 

consider environmental justice 

concerns, for which the New Jersey SIP 

revision fails to adequately account. The 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance 

factor directs states to consider the 

broader environmental implications of 

their regional haze plans, by requiring 

an analysis of the ‘‘non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance,’’ 

including environmental justice. In 

addition, the commenters assert that 

EPA failed to consider environmental 

justice concerns in several New Jersey 

communities identified by EPA’s EJ 

Screen ranking in the ‘‘90+ percentile 

for air toxics cancer risk, air toxics 

respiratory health impacts, and ozone 

exposure.’’ Commenters also state that 

neither the SIP submittal nor EPA’s 

proposal explain how the SIP complies 

with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964. 

Response: The regional haze statutory 

provisions do not explicitly address 

considerations of environmental justice, 

and neither do the regulatory 

requirements of the second planning 

period in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i). 

However, the lack of explicit direction 

does not preclude the State’s SIP 

submission. As explained in ‘‘EPA Legal 

Tools to Advance Environmental 

Justice,’’ 9 the CAA provides states with 

the discretion to consider 

environmental justice in developing 

rules and measures related to regional 

haze. While a Staet may consider 

environmental justice under the 

reasonable progress factors, neither the 

statute nor the regulation requires states 

to conduct an environmental justice 

analysis for EPA to approve a SIP 

submission. 

In this instance, New Jersey explained 

that it ‘‘determined that reasonable 

progress is being made with the 

implementation of the Asks and other 

additional measures to improve 

visibility for the second planning 

period.’’ 10 In its submittal, the State 

also noted that it has an advisory body, 

the Environmental Justice Advisory 

Council (EJAC), that is committed to the 

basic tenet set forth by the 

‘‘Environmental Justice Movement that 

all communities, regardless of their 

racial, ethnic, or economic composition, 

are entitled to equal protection from the 

consequences of environmental 

hazards.’’ New Jersey’s submittal also 

states that EJAC has a workgroup that 

focuses on air issues. In addition, the 

State’s submittal indicates that New 

Jersey Executive Order No. 23,11 signed 

on April 20, 2018, by Governor Murphy, 

directs NJDEP, with support from other 

agencies, to develop guidance on how 

all Staet departments can incorporate 

environmental justice considerations 

into their actions. 

Commenters have provided additional 

information from an EJ Screen analysis 

that the State did not consider as part 

of its regional haze decision making. 

Without agreeing with the particular 

relevance or accuracy of this 

information, EPA acknowledges the EJ 

Screen information provided as part of 

the comment, which identifies certain 

demographic and environmental 

information regarding areas across New 

Jersey. The focus of the SIP at issue 

here, the regional haze SIP for New 

Jersey, is sulfate and nitrate emissions. 

This action addresses one EGU facility 

with three units and two industrial/ 

institutional sources of air pollution 

impacting Class I areas. As discussed in 

the NPRM and in this notice of final 

rulemaking, EPA has evaluated New 

Jersey’s SIP submission against the 

statutory and regulatory regional haze 

requirements and determined that it 

satisfies those minimum requirements. 

Furthermore, the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation 

of environmental justice with a SIP. 

In addition to the above-discussed 

environmental justice related 

comments, the commenters also 

reference Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 (Title VI). EPA has previously 

addressed comments pertaining to Title 

VI and submitted on attainment 

planning SIP actions. See, e.g., 87 FR 

60494, 60530 (Oct. 5, 2022); 77 FR 

65294 (Oct. 26, 2012). Most recently, 

EPA acknowledged in the October 5, 

2022, proposed action that EPA has not 

issued national guidance or regulations 

concerning consideration of Title VI in 

the context of the SIP program. EPA 

indicated in the October 5, 2022, 

proposed action that guidance 

concerning implementation of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E) and Title VI is 

forthcoming. 

Comment: The commentor, NPCA, 

asserts that there are two statements in 

section III.C. ‘‘Long-Term Strategy for 

Regional Haze,’’ 12 of the proposal that 

are inconsistent with the statutory 

requirements for reasonable progress. 

The commentor states that EPA must 

correct and clarify these inaccurate and 

confusing statements in its final action. 

The commentor notes that where a Staet 

uses visibility impacts (or supposedly 

minimal or insufficient visibility 

improvements) to reject emission 

controls at air pollution sources, that 

SIP submittal will be at odds with the 

plain language of the Act. The 

commentor also states that EPA must 

clarify in its final action that states must 

not rely on visibility to exclude 

emission reducing measures from a 

source that would otherwise be required 

to do so under the four statutory factors. 

Response: EPA agrees with the 

commentor that visibility should not be 

used to summarily reject controls that 

are reasonable given the four statutory 

factors and notes that New Jersey did 

not use visibility impacts to reject 

emission controls at air pollution 

sources in its SIP submission. However, 

the EPA has also explained that states 

have flexibility under the CAA and RHR 

to reasonably consider visibility benefits 

as an optional factor alongside the four 

statutory factors, so long as such 

consideration does undermine or nullify 

the role of those statutory factors.13

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving New Jersey’s March 

26, 2020, SIP submission, supplemented 

on September 8, 2020, and April 1, 

2021, as satisfying the regional haze 

requirements for the second 

implementation period contained in 40 

CFR 51.308(f). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

Staet choices, provided that they meet 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
78654 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves Staet law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by Staet law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a Staet program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further 

defines the term fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The NJDEP did not evaluate EJ 

considerations by means of an extensive 

EJ analysis as part of its SIP submittal; 

the CAA and applicable implementing 

regulations neither prohibit nor require 

such an evaluation. Nevertheless, 

NJDEP did reference existing EJ 

programs within its SIP submittal, as 

described above in the section titled, 

‘‘Evaluation of Comments.’’ EPA did not 

perform an EJ analysis and did not 

consider EJ in this action. Due to the 

nature of the action being taken here, 

this action is expected to have a neutral 

to positive impact on the air quality of 

the affected area. Consideration of EJ is 

not required as part of this action, and 

there is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 

12898 of achieving environmental 

justice for people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and the EPA 

will submit a rule report to each House 

of the Congress and the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 16, 2024. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Lisa Garcia, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart FF—New Jersey 

■ 2. In § 52.1570, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘Regional Haze Plan from 2018–2028’’ 

at the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.1570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NEW JERSEY NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

SIP element 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

New Jersey submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

Regional Haze Plan 

from 2018–2028.

State-wide ........ March 26, 2020 as supplemented on September 8, 2020 

and April 1, 2021.

11/16/2023, [insert Federal Register citation].• Full approval. 

• New Jersey has met the Regional 

Haze Rule requirements for the 2nd 

implementation period. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 78655 

[FR Doc. 2023–25239 Filed 11–15–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74 

[GN Docket No. 16–142; FCC 23–53; FR ID 

184482] 

Authorizing Permissive Use of the 

‘‘Next Generation’’ Broadcast 

Television Standard 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) announces that the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved, for a period of three years, the 

information collection requirements 

associated with the Commission’s rules 

in a Report and Order on authorizing 

permissive use of the ‘‘Next Generation’’ 

Broadcast Television Standard. This 

document is consistent with the 

Commission’s Report and Order, which 

stated that the Commission would 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date 

of those rules. 

DATES: The amendments to 47 CFR 

73.3801(f) and (i), 73.6029(f) and (i), and 

74.782(g) and (j) are published at 88 FR 

45347, July 17, 2023 are effective as of 

November 16, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Evan Baranoff, Policy Division, Media 

Bureau, at 202–418–7142, or via email 

at evan.baranoff@ffc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document announces that, on November 

7, 2023, OMB approved the information 

collection requirements contained in 

§§ 73.3801, 73.6029, and 74.782 of the 

Commission’s rules. The OMB Control 

Number is 3060–1254. The Commission 

publishes this document as an 

announcement of the effective date of 

these rules. If you have any comments 

on the burden estimates listed below, or 

how the Commission can improve the 

collections and reduce any burdens 

caused thereby, please contact Cathy 

Williams, Federal Communications 

Commission, Room 3–317, 45 L Street 

NE, Washington, DC 20554. Please 

include the OMB Control Number, 

3060–1254, in your correspondence. 

The Commission will also accept your 

comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), 

the FCC is notifying the public that it 

received final OMB approval on 

November 7, 2023, for the information 

collection requirements contained in 

§§ 73.3801, 73.6029, and 74.782 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not 

conduct or sponsor a collection of 

information unless it displays a current, 

valid OMB Control Number. 

No person shall be subject to any 

penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act that does not 

display a current, valid OMB Control 

Number. 

The foregoing notice is required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, October 1, 1995, 

and 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

The total annual reporting burdens 

and costs for the respondents are as 

follows: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1254. 

OMB Approval Date: November 7, 

2023. 

OMB Expiration Date: November 30, 

2026. 

Title: Next Gen TV/ATSC 3.0 Local 

Simulcasting Rules; 47 CFR 73.3801 

(full-power TV), 73.6029 (Class A TV), 

and 74.782 (low-power TV) and FCC 

Form 2100 (Next Gen TV License 

Application). 

Form Number: FCC Form 2100 (Next 

Gen TV License Application). 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities, state, local, or tribal 

government and not for profit 

institutions. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 1,222 respondents; 11,260 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 0.017– 

8 hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirement; Recordkeeping 

requirement; Third party disclosure. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Statutory 

authority for this collection of 

information is contained in sections 1, 

4, 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 

325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 614, and 

615 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 

301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 

325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 

535. 

Total Annual Burden: 3,802 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: $147,000. 

Needs and Uses: On June 23, 2023, 

the Commission released a Third Report 

and Order (Third R&O), FCC 23–53, in 

GN Docket No. 16–142. In this Third 

R&O, the Commission makes changes to 

its Next Gen TV rules designed to 

preserve over-the-air (OTA) television 

viewers’ access to multicast streams 

during television broadcasters’ 

transition to ATSC 3.0. 

Multicast Licensing. The Commission 

generally adopts its proposal in the Next 

Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM to 

allow a Next Gen TV station to seek 

modification of its license to include 

certain of its non-primary video 

programming streams (multicast 

streams) that are aired on ‘‘host’’ 

stations during a transitional period. In 

adopting this proposal, the Commission 

follows the same licensing framework, 

and to a large extent the same regulatory 

regime, established for the simulcast of 

primary video programming streams on 

‘‘host’’ station facilities. 

Form 2100. The Commission adopts 

the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing 

FNPRM’s proposal to modify its Next 

Gen TV license application form (FCC 

Form 2100) to accommodate multicast 

licensing by collecting information 

similar to that already collected in the 

interim STA process. The Commission 

requires certain additional information 

as an addendum to Form 2100 if 

stations seek to include hosted multicast 

streams within their license. It also 

clarifies and slightly modifies the 

requirements of its rules governing 

Form 2100 to reflect the possibility of 

reliance on multiple hosts. 

Specifically, applicants must prepare 

an Exhibit identifying each proposed 

hosted stream and provide the following 

information about each stream, as 

broadcast: 

• the host station; 

• channel number (RF and virtual); 

• network affiliation (or type of 

programming if unaffiliated); 

• resolution (e.g., 1080i, 720p, 480p, 

or 480i); 

• the predicted percentage of 

population within the noise limited 

service contour served by the station’s 

original ATSC 1.0 signal that will be 

served by the host, with a contour 

overlay map identifying areas of service 

loss and, in the case of 1.0 streams, 

coverage of the originating station’s 

community of license; and 

• whether the stream will be 

simulcast, and if so, the ‘‘paired’’ stream 

in the other service. 

Finally, the Exhibit must either state 

that the applicant will be airing the 

same programming that it is airing in 1.0 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1