[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 160 (Friday, August 19, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51016-51041]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17265]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0432; FRL-10121-01-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: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the regional haze state 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
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. The EPA is taking this action
pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 19,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-
OAR-2020-0432 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Omar Hammad, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-
1866, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at [email protected].

Table of Contents

I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
    A. Regional Haze Background
    B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second
Implementation Period
    A. Identification of Class I Areas
    B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
    D. Reasonable Progress Goals
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan
Requirements
    F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
    G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Implementation Period
    A. Background on New Jersey's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
    B. New Jersey's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and
the EPA's Evaluation
    C. Identification of Class I Areas
    D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
    E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
    a. New Jersey's Response to the Six MANE-VU Asks
    b. The EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Response to the Six
MANE-VU Asks and Compliance with Sec.  51.308(f)(2)(i)
    c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
    F. Reasonable Progress Goals
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
    H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
    I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA proposing?

    On March 26, 2020, supplemented on September 8, 2020, and April 1,
2021, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the second
implementation period. 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. The EPA is proposing to find
that the New Jersey regional haze SIP submission for the second
implementation period meets the applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements and thus proposes to approve New Jersey's submission into
its SIP.

II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans

A. Regional Haze Background

    In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\1\ CAA 169A.
The CAA 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.'' CAA 169A(a)(1). The
CAA further directs the EPA to promulgate regulations to assure
reasonable progress toward meeting this national goal. CAA 169A(a)(4).
On December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated regulations to address
visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas (hereinafter
referred to as ``Class I areas'') that is ``reasonably attributable''
to a single source or small group of sources. (45 FR 80084, December 2,
1980). These regulations, codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307,
represented the first phase of the EPA's efforts to address visibility
impairment. In 1990, Congress added section 169B to the CAA to further
address visibility impairment, specifically, impairment from regional
haze. CAA 169B. The EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR),
codified at 40 CFR 51.308,\2\ on July 1, 1999. (64 FR 35714, July 1,
1999). These regional haze regulations are a central component of the
EPA's comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA
162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of areas to
which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply is
in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
    \2\ In addition to the generally applicable regional haze
provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, the EPA also promulgated regulations
specific to addressing regional haze visibility impairment in Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The latter
regulations are applicable only for specific jurisdictions' regional
haze plans submitted no later than December 17, 2007, and thus are
not relevant here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse
particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and, in
some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia
(NH3)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible
distance.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric used by the RHR. Under many circumstances, a
change in one deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be the
same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is
proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction of
light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to its being
scattered and absorbed as it passes through the atmosphere.
Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used to for
expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters (Mm-1).
The EPA's Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period (``2019 Guidance'') offers the
flexibility for the use of light extinction in certain cases. Light
extinction can be simpler to use in calculations than deciviews,
since it is not a logarithmic function. See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at
16, 19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period, The EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (August
20, 2019). The formula for the deciview is 10 ln (b\ext\)/10 Mm-1).
40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both states in
which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment. CAA 169A(b)(2); \4\ see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional
haze SIP revisions); (64 FR at 35768, July 1, 1999). Under the CAA,
each SIP submission must contain ``a long-term (ten to fifteen years)
strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national
goal,'' CAA 169A(b)(2)(B); the initial round of SIP submissions also
had to address the statutory requirement that certain older, larger
sources of visibility impairing pollutants install and operate the best
available retrofit technology (BART). CAA 169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR
51.308(d), (e). States' first regional haze SIPs were due by December
17, 2007, 40 CFR 51.308(b), with subsequent SIP submissions containing
updated long-term strategies originally due July 31, 2018, and every
ten years thereafter. (64 FR at 35768, July 1, 1999). The EPA
established in the 1999 RHR that all states either have Class I areas
within their borders or ``contain sources whose emissions are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional haze in a Class I
area''; therefore, all states must submit regional haze SIPs.\5\ Id. at
35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for states to
submit plans addressing out-of-state class I areas by providing that
states must address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class
I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
    \5\ In addition to each of the fifty states, the EPA also
concluded that the Virgin Islands and District of Columbia must also
submit regional haze SIPs because they either contain a Class I area
or contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.300(b),
(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Much of the focus in the first implementation period of the
regional haze program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on
satisfying states' BART obligations. First implementation period SIPs
were additionally required to contain long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal, of which BART
is one component. The core required elements for the first
implementation period SIPs (other than BART) are laid out in 40 CFR
51.308(d). Those provisions required that states containing Class I
areas establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs) that are measured in
deciviews and reflect the anticipated visibility conditions at the end
of the implementation period including from implementation of states'
long-term strategies. The first planning period RPGs were required to
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days
over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days over the same period. In
establishing the RPGs for any Class I area in a state, the state was
required to consider four statutory factors: the costs of compliance,
the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of
any potentially affected sources. CAA 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    States were also required to calculate baseline (using the five
year period of 2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions (i.e.,
visibility conditions without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for
each Class I area, and to calculate the linear rate of progress needed
to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of
baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending with natural
conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is known as the uniform
rate of progress (URP) and is used as a tracking metric to help states
assess the amount of progress they are making towards the national
visibility goal over time in each Class I area.\6\ 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2).

The 1999 RHR also provided that States' long-term strategies must
include the ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance, schedules,
and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress
goals.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). In establishing their long-term
strategies, states are required to consult with other states that also
contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area and include
all measures necessary to obtain their shares of the emission
reductions needed to meet the RPGs. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii).
Section 51.308(d) also contains seven additional factors states must
consider in formulating their long-term strategies, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as provisions governing monitoring and other
implementation plan requirements. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Finally, the
1999 RHR required states to submit periodic progress reports--SIP
revisions due every five years that contain information on states'
implementation of their regional haze plans and an assessment of
whether anything additional is needed to make reasonable progress, see
40 CFR 51.308(g), (h)--and to consult with the Federal Land Manager(s)
\7\ (FLMs) responsible for each Class I area according to the
requirements in CAA 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA established the URP framework in the 1999 RHR to provide
``an equitable analytical approach'' to assessing the rate of
visibility improvement at Class I areas across the country. The
start point for the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was
calculated based on the amount of visibility improvement that was
anticipated to result from implementation of existing CAA programs
over the period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005. Assuming
this rate of progress would continue into the future, EPA determined
that natural visibility conditions would be reached in 60 years, or
2064 (60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004). However,
EPA did not establish 2064 as the year by which the national goal
must be reached. 64 FR at 35731-32. That is, the URP and the 2064
date are not enforceable targets, but are rather tools that ``allow
for analytical comparisons between the rate of progress that would
be achieved by the state's chosen set of control measures and the
URP.'' (82 FR 3078, 3084, January 10, 2017).
    \7\ The EPA's regulations define ``Federal Land Manager'' as
``the Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal
Class I area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR, (82
FR 3078, January 10, 2017), that apply for the second and subsequent
implementation periods. The 2017 rulemaking made several changes to the
requirements for regional haze SIPs to clarify States' obligations and
streamline certain regional haze requirements. The revisions to the
regional haze program for the second and subsequent implementation
periods focused on the requirement that States' SIPs contain long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal. The reasonable progress requirements as revised in the
2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are
codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among other changes, the 2017 RHR
Revisions adjusted the deadline for States to submit their second
implementation period SIPs from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021,
clarified the order of analysis and the relationship between RPGs and
the long-term strategy, and focused on making visibility improvements
on the days with the most anthropogenic visibility impairment, as
opposed to the days with the most visibility impairment overall. The
EPA also revised requirements of the visibility protection program
related to periodic progress reports and FLM consultation. The specific
requirements applicable to second implementation period regional haze
SIP submissions are addressed in detail below.
    The EPA provided guidance to the states for their second
implementation period SIP submissions in the preamble to the 2017 RHR
Revisions as well as in subsequent, stand-alone guidance documents. In
August 2019, the EPA issued ``Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2019
Guidance'').\8\ On July 8, 2021, the EPA issued a memorandum containing
``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period'' (``2021 Clarifications Memo'').\9\
Additionally, the EPA further clarified the recommended procedures for
processing ambient visibility data and optionally adjusting the URP to
account for international anthropogenic and prescribed fire impacts in
two technical guidance documents: the December 2018 ``Technical
Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation
Period of the Regional Haze Program'' (``2018 Visibility Tracking
Guidance''),\10\ and the June 2020 ``Recommendation for the Use of
Patched and Substituted Data and Clarification of Data Completeness for
Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation Period of
the Regional Haze Program'' and associated Technical Addendum (``2020
Data Completeness Memo'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the
Second Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019).
    \9\ Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans for the Second Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
    \10\ Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the
Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional The EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park. (December
20, 2018).
    \11\ Recommendation for the Use of Patched and Substituted Data
and Clarification of Data Completeness for Tracking Visibility
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze
Program. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program The EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
(June 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, EPA
intends the second implementation period of the regional haze program
to secure meaningful reductions in visibility impairing pollutants that
build on the significant progress states have achieved to date. The
Agency also recognizes that analyses regarding reasonable progress are
state-specific and that, based on states' and sources' individual
circumstances, what constitutes reasonable reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants will vary from state-to-state. While there exist
many opportunities for states to leverage both ongoing and upcoming
emission reductions under other CAA programs, the Agency expects states
to undertake rigorous reasonable progress analyses that identify
further opportunities to advance the national visibility goal
consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements. See
generally 2021 Clarifications Memo. This is consistent with Congress's
determination that a visibility protection program is needed in
addition to the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration programs, as further emission
reductions may be necessary to adequately protect visibility in Class I
areas throughout the country.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95-294 at 205 (``In determining how
to best remedy the growing visibility problem in these areas of
great scenic importance, the committee realizes that as a matter of
equity, the national ambient air quality standards cannot be revised
to adequately protect visibility in all areas of the country.''),
(``the mandatory class I increments of [the PSD program] do not
adequately protect visibility in class I areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in
Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful
implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term,
regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and the emissions that impact
visibility in those areas. In order to address regional haze, states
need to develop strategies in coordination with one another,
considering the effect of emissions from

one jurisdiction on the air quality in another. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs),\13\ which include representation from state and
tribal governments, the EPA, and FLMs, were developed in the lead-up to
the first implementation period to address regional haze. RPOs evaluate
technical information to better understand how emissions from State and
Tribal land impact Class I areas across the country, pursue the
development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of particulate
matter and other pollutants leading to regional haze, and help states
meet the consultation requirements of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ``multi-
jurisdictional organizations,'' or MJOs. For the purposes of this
notice, the terms RPO and MJO are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), one of the
five RPOs described above, is a collaborative effort of state
governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies
established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues
in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor of the United States. Member
states and tribal governments (listed alphabetically) include:
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and
Vermont. The Federal partner members of MANE-VU are EPA, U.S. National
Parks Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S.
Forest Service (USFS).

III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Implementation
Period

    Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021.
Each state's SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any
existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, Sec.  51.308(f) lays
out the process by which states determine what constitutes their long-
term strategies, with the order of the requirements in Sec.
51.308(f)(1) through (f)(3) generally mirroring the order of the steps
in the reasonable progress analysis \14\ and (f)(4) through (f)(6)
containing additional, related requirements. Broadly speaking, a state
first must identify the Class I areas within the state and determine
the Class I areas outside the state in which visibility may be affected
by emissions from the state. These are the Class I areas that must be
addressed in the state's long-term strategy. See 40 CFR 51.308(f),
(f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders, a state must then
calculate the baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions for
that area, as well as the visibility improvement made to date and the
URP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each state having a Class I area and/or
emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must then
develop a long-term strategy that includes the enforceable emission
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas. Reasonable
progress is determined by applying the four factors in CAA section
169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility-impairing pollutants that the state
has selected to assess for controls for the second implementation
period. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state evaluates potential emission
reduction measures for those selected sources and determines which are
necessary to make reasonable progress using the four statutory factors.
Those measures are then incorporated into the state's long-term
strategy. After a state has developed its long-term strategy, it then
establishes RPGs for each Class I area within its borders by modeling
the visibility impacts of all reasonable progress controls at the end
of the second implementation period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the
impacts of other requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include reasonable
progress controls not only for sources in the state in which the Class
I area is located, but also for sources in other states that contribute
to visibility impairment in that area. The RPGs are then compared to
the baseline visibility conditions and the URP to ensure that progress
is being made towards the statutory goal of preventing any future and
remedying any existing anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I
areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that we were
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' (82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f)
related to reasonable progress, the SIP submissions due by July 31,
2021, for the second implementation period must address the
requirements in Sec.  51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic
reports describing progress towards the RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as
well as requirements for FLM consultation that apply to all visibility
protection SIPs and SIP revisions. 40 CFR 51.308(i).
    A state must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP
revisions to the EPA according to the requirements applicable to all
SIP revisions under the CAA and EPA's regulations. See CAA 169(b)(2);
CAA 110(a). Upon EPA approval, a SIP is enforceable by the Agency and
the public under the CAA. If EPA finds that a state fails to make a
required SIP revision, or if the EPA finds that a state's SIP is
incomplete or if disapproves the SIP, the Agency must promulgate a
federal implementation plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable
requirements. CAA 110(c)(1).

A. Identification of Class I Areas

    The SIP revision submission due by July 31, 2021, ``must address
regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the
State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the
State that may be affected by emissions from within the State.'' 40 CFR
51.308(f); see also 51.308(f)(2).\15\ Thus, the first step in
developing a regional haze SIP is for a state to determine which Class
I areas, in addition to those within its borders, ``may be affected''
by emissions from within the state. In the 1999 RHR, the EPA determined
that all states contribute to visibility impairment in at least one
Class I area, 64 FR at 35720-22, and explained that the statute and
regulations lay out an ``extremely low triggering threshold'' for
determining ``whether States should be required to engage in air
quality planning and analysis as a prerequisite to determining the need
for control of emissions from sources within their State.'' Id. at
35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The RHR uses the phrase ``that may be affected by emissions
from the State'' to implement CAA 169A(b)(2)'s requirement that a
state ``the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' submit a SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A state must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants from all sources within the state. While the RHR does not
require this evaluation to be conducted in any particular manner, EPA's
2019 Guidance provides recommendations for how such an assessment might
be accomplished, including by, where appropriate, using the
determinations previously made for the first implementation period.
2019

Guidance at 8-9. In addition, the determination of which Class I areas
may be affected by a state's emissions is subject to the requirement in
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ``document the technical basis, including
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information, on
which the State is relying to determine the emission reduction measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress in each mandatory Class
I Federal area it affects.''

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress

    As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second
implementation period is providing for reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in Sec.
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The
requirements of this subsection apply only to states having Class I
areas within their borders; the required calculations must be made for
each such Class I area. EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance \16\
provides recommendations to assist states in satisfying their
obligations under Sec.  51.308(f)(1); specifically, in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP to account for the
impacts of international anthropogenic emissions and prescribed fires.
See 82 FR at 3103-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance references and relies
on parts of the 2003 Tracking Guidance: ``Guidance for Tracking
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule,'' which can be found at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/tracking.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of
days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions
for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for
the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or
current visibility conditions). The RHR provides that the relevant sets
of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20% clearest (the 20%
of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest values of the
deciview index) and 20% most impaired days (the 20% of monitored days
in a calendar year with the highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility
impairment).\17\ 40 CFR 51.301. A state must calculate visibility
conditions for both the 20% clearest and 20% most impaired days for the
baseline period of 2000-2004 and the most recent five-year period for
which visibility monitoring data are available (representing current
visibility conditions). 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). States must also
calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest and most
impaired days,\18\ by estimating the conditions that would exist on
those two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility impairment. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data, states must then calculate,
for each Class I area, the amount of progress made since the baseline
period (2000-2004) and how much improvement is left to achieve in order
to reach natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This notice also refers to the 20% clearest and 20% most
anthropogenically impaired days as the ``clearest'' and ``most
impaired'' or ``most anthropogenically impaired'' days,
respectively.
    \18\ The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an error
related to the requirement for calculating two sets of natural
conditions values. The rule says ``most impaired days or the
clearest days'' where it should say ``most impaired days and
clearest days.'' This is an error that was intended to be corrected
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected in the final
rule language. This is supported by the preamble text at 82 FR 3098:
``In the final version of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of
``or'' has been corrected to ``and'' to indicate that natural
visibility conditions for both the most impaired days and the
clearest days must be based on available monitoring information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, states must
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the
URP--the amount of visibility improvement, measured in deciviews, that
would need to be achieved during each implementation period in order to
achieve natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064. The URP is
used in later steps of the reasonable progress analysis for
informational purposes and to provide a non-enforceable benchmark
against which to assess a Class I area's rate of visibility
improvement.\19\ Additionally, in the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA
provided states the option of proposing to adjust the endpoint of the
URP to account for impacts of anthropogenic sources outside the United
States and/or impacts of certain types of wildland prescribed fires.
These adjustments, which must be approved by the EPA, are intended to
avoid any perception that states should compensate for impacts from
international anthropogenic sources and to give states the flexibility
to determine that limiting the use of wildland-prescribed fire is not
necessary for reasonable progress. 82 FR 3107 footnote 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Being on or below the URP is not a ``safe harbor''; i.e.,
achieving the URP does not mean that a Class I area is making
``reasonable progress'' and does not relieve a state from using the
four statutory factors to determine what level of control is needed
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help satisfy
the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020
Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in Sec.  51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides
updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.

C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze

    The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a long-term
strategy that addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a
state's borders and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions
from the state. The long-term strategy ``must include the enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that
are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to
(f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress
that is ``reasonable progress'' is determined by applying the four
statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of
potential control options for sources of visibility impairing
pollutants, which is referred to as a ``four-factor'' analysis. The
outcome of that analysis is the emission reduction measures that a
particular source or group of sources needs to implement in order to
make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. See 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress may be either new, additional control measures
for a source, or they may be the existing emission reduction measures
that a source is already implementing. See 2019 Guidance at 43; 2021
Clarifications Memo at 8-10. Such measures must be represented by
``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures'' (i.e., any additional compliance tools) in a state's long-
term strategy in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
    Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the four-
factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails selecting the
sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end,
the RHR requires states to consider ``major and minor stationary
sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources'' of
visibility impairing pollutants for potential four-factor control
analysis. 40

CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold question at this step is which
visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed. As EPA previously
explained, consistent with the first implementation period, EPA
generally expects that each state will analyze at least SO2
and NOX in selecting sources and determining control
measures. See 2019 Guidance at 12, 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. A
state that chooses not to consider at least these two pollutants should
demonstrate why such consideration would be unreasonable. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 4.
    While states have the option to analyze all sources, the 2019
Guidance explains that ``an analysis of control measures is not
required for every source in each implementation period,'' and that
``[s]electing a set of sources for analysis of control measures in each
implementation period is . . . consistent with the Regional Haze Rule,
which sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a
state may not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a
given SIP revision.'' 2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that source
selection is the basis of all subsequent control determinations, a
reasonable source selection process ``should be designed and conducted
to ensure that source selection results in a set of pollutants and
sources the evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully
reduce their contributions to visibility impairment.'' 2021
Clarifications Memo at 3.
    EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that each state has
an obligation to submit a long-term strategy that addresses the
regional haze visibility impairment that results from emissions from
within that state. Thus, source selection should focus on the in-state
contribution to visibility impairment and be designed to capture a
meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to visibility
impairment in Class I areas. A state should not decline to select its
largest in-state sources on the basis that there are even larger out-
of-state contributors. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Similarly, in responding to comments on the 2017 RHR
Revisions EPA explained that ``[a] state should not fail to address
its many relatively low-impact sources merely because it only has
such sources and another state has even more low-impact sources and/
or some high impact sources.'' Responses to Comments on Protection
of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) at 87-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, while states have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained and result in a set of sources which capture a
meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to visibility
impairment. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that a state's
SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it used to
determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.'' The
technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
    Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.\21\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' CAA 169A(g)(1). The EPA has explained that the four-
factor analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction
measures (i.e., control options) for sources; ``use of the terms
`compliance' and `subject to such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1)
strongly indicates that Congress intended the relevant determination to
be the requirements with which sources would have to comply in order to
satisfy the CAA's reasonable progress mandate.'' 82 FR at 3091. Thus,
for each source it has selected for four-factor analysis,\22\ a state
must consider a ``meaningful set'' of technically feasible control
options for reducing emissions of visibility impairing pollutants. Id.
at 3088. The 2019 Guidance provides that ``[a] state must reasonably
pick and justify the measures that it will consider, recognizing that
there is no statutory or regulatory requirement to consider all
technically feasible measures or any particular measures. A range of
technically feasible measures available to reduce emissions would be
one way to justify a reasonable set.'' 2019 Guidance at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. CAA 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-
factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or source
categories, a state may also consider additional emission reduction
measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for
sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the second
planning period.
    \22\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' 82 FR at
3088. However, not all approaches to grouping sources for four-
factor analysis are necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness of
grouping sources in any particular instance will depend on the
circumstances and the manner in which grouping is conducted. If it
is feasible to establish and enforce different requirements for
sources or subgroups of sources, and if relevant factors can be
quantified for those sources or subgroups, then states should make a
separate reasonable progress determination for each source or
subgroup. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further guidance on what
constitutes a reasonable set of control options for consideration: ``A
reasonable four-factor analysis will consider the full range of
potentially reasonable options for reducing emissions.'' 2021
Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to add-on controls and other
retrofits (i.e., new emission reduction measures for sources), EPA
explained that states should generally analyze efficiency improvements
for sources' existing measures as control options in their four-factor
analyses, as in many cases such improvements are reasonable given that
they typically involve only additional operation and maintenance costs.
Additionally, the 2021 Clarifications Memo provides that states that
have assumed a higher emission rate than a source has achieved or could
potentially achieve using its existing measures should also consider
lower emission rates as potential control options. That is, a state
should consider a source's recent actual and projected emission rates
to determine if it could reasonably attain lower emission rates with
its existing measures. If so, the state should analyze the lower
emission rate as a control option for reducing emissions. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 7. The EPA's recommendations to analyze
potential efficiency improvements and achievable lower emission rates
apply to both sources that have been selected for four-factor analysis
and those that have forgone a four-factor analysis on the basis of
existing ``effective controls.'' See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5, 10.
    After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for
the sources it has selected, a state then collects information on the
four factors with regard to each option identified. The EPA has also
explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility
benefits as

an optional fifth factor alongside the four statutory factors.\23\ The
2019 Guidance provides recommendations for the types of information
that can be used to characterize the four factors (with or without
visibility), as well as ways in which states might reasonably consider
and balance that information to determine which of the potential
control options is necessary to make reasonable progress. See 2019
Guidance at 30-36. The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains further
guidance on how states can reasonably consider modeled visibility
impacts or benefits in the context of a four-factor analysis. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 12-13, 14-15. Specifically, EPA explained that
while visibility can reasonably be used when comparing and choosing
between multiple reasonable control options, it should not be used to
summarily reject controls that are reasonable given the four statutory
factors. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13. Ultimately, while states have
discretion to reasonably weigh the factors and to determine what level
of control is needed, Sec.  51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a state
``must include in its implementation plan a description of . . . how
the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the measure
for inclusion in its long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0531,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019 Guidance at 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, Sec.  51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to Sec.  51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be
included in a state's long-term strategy and in its SIP.\24\ If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis is a new, additional emission
reduction measure for a source, that new measure is necessary to make
reasonable progress towards remedying existing anthropogenic visibility
impairment and must be included in the SIP. If the outcome of a four-
factor analysis is that no new measures are reasonable for a source,
continued implementation of the source's existing measures is generally
necessary to prevent future emission increases and thus to make
reasonable progress towards the second part of the national visibility
goal: preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment. See CAA
169A(a)(1). That is, when the result of a four-factor analysis is that
no new measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, the source's
existing measures are generally necessary to make reasonable progress
and must be included in the SIP. However, there may be circumstances in
which a state can demonstrate that a source's existing measures are not
necessary to make reasonable progress. Specifically, if a state can
demonstrate that a source will continue to implement its existing
measures and will not increase its emission rate, it may not be
necessary to have those measures in the long-term strategy in order to
prevent future emission increases and future visibility impairment.
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further explanation and
guidance on how states may demonstrate that a source's existing
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 8-10. If the state can make such a
demonstration, it need not include a source's existing measures in the
long-term strategy or its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ States may choose to, but are not required to, include
measures in their long-term strategies beyond just the emission
reduction measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with smoke
management programs may choose to submit their smoke management
plans to EPA for inclusion in their SIPs but are not required to do
so. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3108-09 (requirement to consider smoke
management practices and smoke management programs under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require states to adopt such practices or
programs into their SIPs, although they may elect to do so).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with source selection, the characterization of information on
each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in
Sec.  51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including
source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four
statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four
factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that
represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, Sec.  51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and
evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to
determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make
reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on
which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make
reasonable progress. This documentation requirement can be met through
the provision of and reliance on technical analyses developed through a
regional planning process, so long as that process and its output has
been approved by all state participants. In addition to the explicit
regulatory requirement to document the technical basis of their
reasonable progress determinations, states are also subject to the
general principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored
to the statute.\25\ That is, a state's decisions about the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must
be consistent with the statutory goal of remedying existing and
preventing future visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531
(9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir.
2016); North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013);
Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208-10 (10th Cir. 2013); cf.
also Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d
Cir. 2015); Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S.
461, 485, 490 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to
determine what emission reduction measures for selected sources must be
included in a state's long-term strategy for making reasonable
progress. Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \26\ that states must consider in
developing their long-term strategies: (1) Emission reductions due to
ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address
reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce
the impacts of construction activities; (3) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for
prescribed fire used for agricultural and wildland vegetation
management purposes and smoke management programs; and (5) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point,
area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the
long-term strategy. The 2019 Guidance provides that a state may satisfy
this requirement by considering these additional factors in the process
of selecting sources for four-factor analysis, when performing that
analysis, or both, and that not every one of the additional factors
needs to be considered at the same stage of the process. See 2019
Guidance at 21. EPA

provided further guidance on the five additional factors in the 2021
Clarifications Memo, explaining that a state should generally not
reject cost-effective and otherwise reasonable controls merely because
there have been emission reductions since the first planning period
owing to other ongoing air pollution control programs or merely because
visibility is otherwise projected to improve at Class I areas.
Additionally, states should not rely on these additional factors to
summarily assert that the state has already made sufficient progress
and, therefore, no sources need to be selected or no new controls are
needed regardless of the outcome of four-factor analyses. States can,
however, consider these factors in a more tailored manner, e.g., in
choosing between multiple control options when all are reasonable based
on the four statutory factors.\27\ 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
    \27\ In particular, EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications
Memo that states should not rely on the considerations in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A) and (E) to summarily assert that the state has
already made sufficient progress and therefore does not need to
achieve any additional emission reductions. 2021 Clarifications Memo
at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state
boundaries, Sec.  51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area.
Consultation allows for each state that impacts visibility in an area
to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control
determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission
management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter-
and intra-RPO consultation and the development of regional emissions
strategies; additional consultations between states outside of RPO
processes may also occur. If a state, pursuant to consultation, agrees
that certain measures (e.g., a certain emission limitation) are
necessary to make reasonable progress at a Class I area, it must
include those measures in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A).
Additionally, the RHR requires that states that contribute to
visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider the emission
reduction measures the other contributing states have identified as
being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own sources. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a state has been asked to consider or adopt
certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately determines those
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress, that state must
document in its SIP the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). The EPA will consider the technical
information and explanations presented by the submitting state and the
state with which it disagrees when considering whether to approve the
state's SIP. See id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all circumstances, a
state must document in its SIP submission all substantive consultations
with other contributing states. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).

D. Reasonable Progress Goals

    Reasonable progress goals ``measure the progress that is projected
to be achieved by the control measures states have determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor
analysis.'' 82 FR at 3091. Their primary purpose is to assist the
public and the EPA in assessing the reasonableness of states' long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii)-(iv). States in which
Class I areas are located must establish two RPGs, both in deciviews--
one representing visibility conditions on the clearest days and one
representing visibility on the most anthropogenically impaired days--
for each area within their borders. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The two
RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts, on the two sets of
days, of the emission reduction measures the state with the Class I
area, as well as all other contributing states, have included in their
long-term strategies for the second implementation period.\28\ The RPGs
also account for the projected impacts of implementing other CAA
requirements, including non-SIP based requirements. Because RPGs are
the modeled result of the measures in states' long-term strategies (as
well as other measures required under the CAA), they cannot be
determined before states have conducted their four-factor analyses and
determined the control measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts of the
measures all contributing states include in their long-term
strategies. However, due to the timing of analyses and of control
determinations by other states, other on-going emissions changes, a
particular state's RPGs may not reflect all control measures and
emissions reductions that are expected to occur by the end of the
implementation period. The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations
for addressing the timing of RPG calculations when states are
developing their long-term strategies on disparate schedules, as
well as for adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling approach. 2019
Guidance at 47-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the second implementation period, the RPGs are set for 2028.
Reasonable progress goals are not enforceable targets, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ``provide a way for the states to check
the projected outcome of the [long-term strategy] against the goals for
visibility improvement.'' 2019 Guidance at 46. While states are not
legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in
their RPGs, Sec.  51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he long-term
strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline
period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days
since the baseline period.'' Thus, states are required to have emission
reduction measures in their long-term strategies that are projected to
achieve visibility conditions on the most impaired days that are better
than the baseline period and shows no degradation on the clearest days
compared to the clearest days from the baseline period. The baseline
period for the purpose of this comparison is the baseline visibility
condition--the annual average visibility condition for the period 2000-
2004. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR at 3097-98.
    So that RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making towards the national visibility goal, the
RHR requires states with Class I areas to compare the 2028 RPG for the
most impaired days to the corresponding point on the URP line
(representing visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility were to
improve at a linear rate from conditions in the baseline period of
2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064). If the most
impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP (i.e., if visibility
conditions are improving more slowly than the rate described by the
URP), each state that contributes to visibility impairment in the Class
I area must demonstrate, based on the four-factor analysis required
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional emission reduction
measures would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires
that each state contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area
that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP provide ``a
robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria used to
determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated and how
the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken into
consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term
strategy.'' The 2019

Guidance provides suggestions about how such a ``robust demonstration''
might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance at 50-51.
    The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications Memo also
explain that projecting an RPG that is on or below the URP based on
only on-the-books and/or on-the-way control measures (i.e., control
measures already required or anticipated before the four-factor
analysis is conducted) is not a ``safe harbor'' from the CAA's and
RHR's requirement that all states must conduct a four-factor analysis
to determine what emission reduction measures constitute reasonable
progress. The URP is a planning metric used to gauge the amount of
progress made thus far and the amount left before reaching natural
visibility conditions. However, the URP is not based on consideration
of the four statutory factors and therefore cannot answer the question
of whether the amount of progress being made in any particular
implementation period is ``reasonable progress.'' See 82 FR at 3093,
3099-3100; 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 15-16.

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this subsection apply either to states with Class I
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. A state with Class I areas within its
borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility
impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the
state. SIP revisions for such states must also provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess visibility conditions in Class I areas, as well as reporting of
all visibility monitoring data to the EPA at least annually. Compliance
with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a state's
participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network, which is used to measure
visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i),
(f)(6)(iv). The IMPROVE monitoring data is used to determine the 20%
most anthropogenically impaired and 20% clearest sets of days every
year at each Class I area and tracks visibility impairment over time.
    All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii). Section
51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires that all states' SIPs provide for a
statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area; the inventory must include emissions for the most recent
year for which data are available and estimates of future projected
emissions. States must also include commitments to update their
inventories periodically. The inventories themselves do not need to be
included as elements in the SIP and are not subject to EPA review as
part of the Agency's evaluation of a SIP revision.\29\ All states' SIPs
must also provide for any other elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for states to
assess and report on visibility. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 2019
Guidance, a state may note in its regional haze SIP that its compliance
with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51 Subpart
A satisfies the requirement to provide for an emissions inventory for
the most recent year for which data are available. To satisfy the
requirement to provide estimates of future projected emissions, a state
may explain in its SIP how projected emissions were developed for use
in establishing RPGs for its own and nearby Class I areas.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See ``Step 8: Additional requirements for regional haze
SIPs'' in 2019 Regional Haze Guidance at 55.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for regional
haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the RHR also contains a
requirement at Sec.  51.308(f)(4) related to any additional monitoring
that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class I areas
from a single source or a small group of sources. This is called
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' \31\ Under this
provision, if the EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has
advised a state that additional monitoring is needed to assess
reasonably attributable visibility impairment, the state must include
in its SIP revision for the second implementation period an appropriate
strategy for evaluating such impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ EPA's visibility protection regulations define ``reasonably
attributable visibility impairment'' as ``visibility impairment that
is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small
number of sources.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals

    Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a
state's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether
such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility
improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), (82 FR at 3119,
January 10, 2017). To this end, every state's SIP revision for the
second implementation period is required to describe the status of
implementation of all measures included in the state's long-term
strategy, including BART and reasonable progress emission reduction
measures from the first implementation period, and the resulting
emissions reductions. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
    A core component of the progress report requirements is an
assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest and most
impaired days. For second implementation period progress reports, Sec.
51.308(g)(3) requires states with Class I areas within their borders to
first determine current visibility conditions for each area on the most
impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to
calculate the difference between those current conditions and baseline
(2000-2004) visibility conditions in order to assess progress made to
date. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). States must also assess the
changes in visibility impairment for the most impaired and clearest
days since they submitted their first implementation period progress
reports. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B), (f)(5). Since different
states submitted their first implementation period progress reports at
different times, the starting point for this assessment will vary state
by state.
    Similarly, states must provide analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the state over the period since they
submitted their first implementation period progress reports. See 40
CFR 51.308(g)(4), (f)(5). Changes in emissions should be identified by
the

type of source or activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses changes
in emissions since the period addressed by the previous progress report
and requires states' SIP revisions to include an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the
state. This assessment must include an explanation of whether these
changes in emissions were anticipated and whether they have limited or
impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility
relative to what the state projected based on its long-term strategy
for the first implementation period.

G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination

    Clean Air Act section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a
public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must
consult with the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that
consultation, the state must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions
and recommendations in the notice to the public. Consistent with this
statutory requirement, the RHR also requires that states ``provide the
[FLM] with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point
early enough in the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy
emission reduction obligation so that information and recommendations
provided by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on
the long-term strategy.'' 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). Consultation that occurs
120 days prior to any public hearing or public comment opportunity will
be deemed ``early enough,'' but the RHR provides that in any event the
opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 60 days before a
public hearing or comment opportunity. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of visibility
impairment in any Class I area and their recommendations on the
development and implementation of strategies to address such
impairment. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for the EPA to evaluate
whether FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has
occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of the timing
and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to the EPA
must also describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the
FLMs. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision 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. 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4).

IV. The EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Regional Haze Submission for
the Second Implementation Period

A. Background on New Jersey's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission

    NJDEP submitted its regional haze SIP for the first implementation
period to the EPA on July 28, 2009, and supplemented it on December 9,
2010, March 2, 2011, and December 7, 2011. The EPA approved New
Jersey's first implementation period regional haze SIP submission on
January 3, 2012 (77 FR 19, January 3, 2012). EPA's approval included,
but was not limited to, the portions of the plan that address the
reasonable progress requirements, New Jersey's implementation of Best
Available Retrofit Technologies on eligible sources, and New Jersey's
Subchapter 9,\32\ Sulfur in Fuels rule. The requirements for regional
haze SIPs for the first implementation period are contained in 40 CFR
51.308(d) and (e). 40 CFR 51.308(b). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g), New
Jersey was also responsible for submitting a five-year progress report
as a SIP revision for the first implementation period, which it did on
June 28, 2016. The EPA approved the progress report into the New Jersey
SIP on September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45472, September 29, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See N.J.A.C. 7:27-9 ``Sulfur in Fuels''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. New Jersey's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and the
EPA's Evaluation

    In accordance with CAA sections 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f), on March 26, 2020,\33\ NJDEP submitted a revision to the New
Jersey SIP to address its regional haze obligations for the second
implementation period, which runs through 2028. New Jersey made its
2020 Regional Haze SIP submission available for public comment on
August 22, 2019. NJDEP received and responded to public comments and
included the comments and responses to those comments in their
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ NJDEP supplemented its SIP submission on September 8, 2020,
and April 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections describe New Jersey's SIP submission,
including analyses conducted by MANE-VU and New Jersey's determinations
based on those analyses, New Jersey's assessment of progress made since
the first implementation period in reducing emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants, and the visibility improvement progress at its
Class I area and nearby Class I areas. This notice also contains EPA's
evaluation of New Jersey's submission against the requirements of the
CAA and RHR for the second implementation period of the regional haze
program.

C. Identification of Class I Areas

    Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each state in which any
Class I area is located or ``the emissions from which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in
a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. The RHR implements this statutory requirement
at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each state's plan ``must
address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the
State,'' and (f)(2), which requires each state's plan to include a
long-term strategy that addresses regional haze in such Class I areas.
    The EPA explained in the 1999 RHR preamble that the CAA section
169A(b)(2) requirement that states submit SIPs to address visibility
impairment establishes ``an `extremely low triggering threshold' in
determining which States should submit SIPs for regional haze.'' 64 FR
at 35721. In concluding that each of the contiguous 48 states and the
District of Columbia meet this threshold,\34\ the EPA relied on ``a
large body of evidence demonstrat[ing] that long-range transport of
fine PM contributes to regional haze,'' id., including modeling studies
that ``preliminarily demonstrated that each State not having a Class I
area had emissions contributing to impairment in at least one downwind
Class I area.'' Id. at 35722. In addition to the technical evidence
supporting a conclusion that each state contributes to existing
visibility impairment, the EPA also explained that the second half of
the national visibility goal--preventing future visibility impairment--
requires having a framework in place to address future growth in
visibility-impairing emissions and makes it inappropriate to
``establish criteria for excluding States

or geographic areas from consideration as potential contributors to
regional haze visibility impairment.'' Id. at 35721. Thus, the EPA
concluded that the agency's ``statutory authority and the scientific
evidence are sufficient to require all States to develop regional haze
SIPs to ensure the prevention of any future impairment of visibility,
and to conduct further analyses to determine whether additional control
measures are needed to ensure reasonable progress in remedying existing
impairment in downwind Class I areas.'' Id. at 35722. EPA's 2017
revisions to the RHR did not disturb this conclusion. See 82 FR at
3094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ EPA determined that ``there is more than sufficient
evidence to support our conclusion that emissions from each of the
48 contiguous states and the District of Columba may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area.'' 64 FR at 35721. Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands must also submit regional haze SIPs because they contain
Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Jersey has one mandatory Class I Federal area within its
borders, the Brigantine Wilderness Area of the Edwin B. Forsythe
National Wildlife Refuge. For the second implementation period, MANE-VU
performed technical analyses \35\ to help assess source and state-level
contributions to visibility impairment and the need for interstate
consultation. MANE-VU used the results of these analyses to determine
which states' emissions ``have a high likelihood of affecting
visibility in MANE-VU's Class I areas.'' \36\ Similar to metrics used
in the first implementation period,\37\ MANE-VU used a greater than 2
percent of sulfate plus nitrate emissions contribution criteria to
determine whether emissions from individual jurisdictions within the
region affected visibility in any Class I areas. The MANE-VU analyses
for the second implementation period used a combination of data
analysis techniques, including emissions data, distance from Class I
areas, wind trajectories, and CALPUFF dispersion modeling. Although
many of the analyses focused only on SO2 emissions and
resultant particulate sulfate contributions to visibility impairment,
some also incorporated NOX emissions to estimate particulate
nitrate contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The contribution assessment methodologies for MANE-VU Class
I areas are summarized in appendix E1 of the docket. ``Selection of
States for MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation (2018).''
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ See docket EPA-R02-OAR-2011-0607 for MANE-VU supporting
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One MANE-VU analysis used for contribution assessment was CALPUFF
air dispersion modeling. The CALPUFF model was used to estimate sulfate
and nitrate formation and transport in MANE-VU and nearby regions
originating from large electric generating unit (EGU) point sources and
other large industrial and institutional sources in the eastern and
central United States. Information from an initial round of CALPUFF
modeling was collated for the 444 EGUs that were determined to warrant
further scrutiny based on their emissions of SO2 and
NOX. The list of EGUs was based on an enhanced ``Q/d''
analysis \38\ that considered recent SO2 emissions in the
eastern United States and an analysis that adjusted previous 2002 MANE-
VU CALPUFF modeling by applying a ratio of 2011 to 2002 SO2
emissions. This list of sources was then enhanced by including the top
five SO2 and NOX emission sources for 2011 for
each state included in the modeling domain. A total of 311 EGU stacks
(as opposed to individual units) were included in the CALPUFF modeling
analysis. Initial information was also collected on the 50 industrial
and institutional sources that, according to 2011 Q/d analysis,
contributed the most to visibility impact in each Class I area. The
ultimate CALPUFF modeling run included a total of 311 EGU stacks and 82
industrial facilities. The summary report for the CALPUFF modeling
included the top 10 most impacting EGUs and the top 5 most impacting
industrial/institutional sources for each Class I area and compiled
those results into a ranked list of the most impacting EGUs and
industrial sources at MANE-VU Class I areas.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ ``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.
    \39\ See appendix F1 in the docket, ``MANE-VU CALPUFF Modeling
Report--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Jersey had an EGU and two industrial/institutional sources that
were included in the MANE-VU CALPUFF modeling.\40\ The modeling
identified the EGU facility BL England (units 1, 2 & 3) as impacting
the Brigantine Wilderness, Dolly Sods and Shenandoah Class I areas.
Unit 1 ranked 4th on MANE-VU's list and units 2 & 3 ranked 10th for
impacts at the Brigantine Wilderness Class I area. Although BL England
impacted the Dolly Sods and Shenandoah Class I areas, it did not rank
amongst the top 10 impacting EGUs. The two industrial/institutional
sources identified by the modeling were Atlantic County Utilities
Authority (ACUA), which ranked 5th for impacts at the Brigantine
Wilderness Class I area, and Gerresheimer Moulded Glass, which was not
ranked among the top 5 visibility impairing industrial/institutional
sources at any Class I areas. In its submittal, New Jersey indicates
that BL England ceased operations and shut down in May of 2019. NJDEP's
Southern Air Compliance and Enforcement office conducted a site
investigation at BL England September 20, 2019, and observed that units
1, 2, and 3 are decommissioned and rendered inoperable. On December 3,
2019, the NJDEP terminated the air operating permit at BL England
Generating Station.\41\ Additionally, at the time of the analysis, the
industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers at ACUA and
Gerresheimer Moulded Glass (now Corning Pharmaceutical Glass)
contributed 1.67 inverse megameters (Mm-1) and 1.0 Mm-1, respectively,
based on their close proximity to Brigantine. However, this assessment
was based on the sources' 2011 configurations and emission rates.
Currently, there are no permitted ICI boilers at these facilities. In
2019, ACUA's emissions were 19 tons per year (tpy) for NOX
and 19 tpy for SO2, while the 2011 emissions of
SO2 were 907.88 tpy. The 2019 annual emissions at Corning
Pharmaceuticals were 54 tpy for NOX and 1 tpy for
SO2, while the 2011 emissions of SO2 were
3,007.04 tpy.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See tables 4, 5, 6, 34 and 35 in appendix F1 in the docket.
    \41\ See appendix J9, ``BL England Operating Permit Termination
Letter--Final.''
    \42\ See Table 3-2 ``82 Industrial Sources Evaluated for Impact
at MANE-VU Class I Areas'' in the NJ Regional Haze SIP--Final March
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second MANE-VU contribution analysis used a meteorologically
weighted Q/d calculation to assess states' contributions to visibility
impairment at MANE-VU Class I areas.\43\ This analysis focused
predominantly on SO2 emissions and used cumulative
SO2 emissions from a source and a state for the variable
``Q,'' and the distance of the source or state to the IMPROVE monitor
receptor at a Class I area as ``d.'' The result is then multiplied by a
constant (Ci), which is determined based on the prevailing
wind patterns. MANE-VU selected a meteorologically weighted Q/d
analysis as an inexpensive initial screening tool that could easily be
repeated to determine which states, sectors, or sources have a larger
relative impacts and warrant further analysis. MANE-VU's analysis
estimated New Jersey's maximum sulfate contribution was 1.32% at the
Brigantine Wilderness Class I area based on the maximum daily impact;
New Jersey's SO2 emission contribution did not exceed 1% for
any other Class I area. Although MANE-VU did not originally estimate
nitrate impacts, the MANE-VU Q/d analysis was subsequently extended to
account for nitrate contributions from NOX emissions and to
approximate the

nitrate impacts from area and mobile sources. MANE-VU therefore
developed a ratio of nitrate to sulfate impacts based on the previously
described CALPUFF modeling and applied those to the sulfate Q/d results
in order to derive nitrate contribution estimates. Several states did
not have CALPUFF nitrate to sulfate ratio results, however, because
there were no point sources modeled with CALPUFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See appendix G1, ``Contribution Assessment 2006--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to develop a final set of contribution estimates, MANE-VU
weighted the results from both the Q/d and CALPUFF analyses. The MANE-
VU mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate contribution results were reported
for the MANE-VU Class I areas (the Q/d summary report included results
for several non-MANE-VU areas as well). If a state's contribution to
sulfate and nitrate concentrations at a particular Class I area was 2
percent or greater, MANE-VU regarded that state as contributing to
visibility impairment in that area. According to MANE-VU's analyses,
sources in New Jersey have been found to contribute to visibility
impairment at its own Class I area, the Brigantine Wilderness, and at
the Dolly Sods Wilderness in West Virginia and Shenandoah National Park
in Virginia. However, because New Jersey's mass-weighted contribution
to sulfate and nitrate concentrations exceeded the 2 percent threshold
only at Brigantine Wilderness (New Jersey's contribution was 2.2%), the
RPO and New Jersey determined that it did not contribute to visibility
impairment at Dolly Sods, Shenandoah, or any other Class I area.
    As explained above, the EPA concluded in the 1999 RHR that ``all
[s]tates contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to regional haze in a Class I area,'' 64 FR at 35721, and
this determination was not changed in the 2017 RHR. Critically, the
statute and regulation both require that the cause-or-contribute
assessment consider all emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants
from a state, as opposed to emissions of a particular pollutant or
emissions from a certain set of sources. Consistent with these
requirements, the 2019 Guidance makes it clear that ``all types of
anthropogenic sources are to be included in the determination'' of
whether a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to result in any
visibility impairment. 2019 Guidance at 8.
    First, as an aside, the screening analyses on which MANE-VU relied
are useful for certain purposes. MANE-VU used information from its
technical analysis to rank the largest contributing states to sulfate
and nitrate impairment in five Class I areas within MANE-VU states and
three additional, nearby Class I areas.\44\ The rankings were used to
determine upwind states that were deemed important to include in state-
to-state consultation (based on an identified impact screening
threshold). Additionally, large individual source impacts were used to
target MANE-VU control analysis ``Asks'' \45\ of states and sources
both within and upwind of MANE-VU.\46\ The EPA finds the nature of the
analyses generally appropriate to support decisions on states with
which to consult. However, we have cautioned that source selection
methodologies that target the largest regional contributors to
visibility impairment across multiple states may not be reasonable for
a particular state if it results in few or no sources being selected
for subsequent analysis. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The Class I areas analyzed were Acadia National Park in
Maine, Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey, Great Gulf Wilderness in
New Hampshire, Lye Brook Wilderness in Vermont, Moosehorn Wilderness
in Maine, Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, James River Face
Wilderness in Virginia, and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wildernesses in
West Virginia.
    \45\ As explained more fully in Section IV.E.a, MANE-VU refers
to each of the components of its overall strategy as an ``Ask ``of
its member states.
    \46\ The MANE-VU consultation report (Appendix D) explains that
``[t]he objective of this technical work was to identify states and
sources from which MANE-VU will pursue further analysis. This
screening was intended to identify which states to invite to
consultation, not a definitive list of which states are
contributing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the analysis and determinations regarding 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. However, the analyses 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, Q/d analyses with a
relatively simplistic accounting for wind trajectories and CALPUFF
applied to a very limited set of EGUs and major industrial sources of
SO2 and NOX are not scientifically rigorous tools
capable of evaluating contribution to visibility impairment from all
emissions in a state. The EPA does agree that the contribution to
visibility impairment from New Jersey's emissions at nearby out-of-
state Class I areas is smaller than that from numerous other MANE-VU
states.\47\ And 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 state is obligated under the CAA
and RHR to address regional haze visibility impairment resulting from
emissions from within the state, irrespective of whether another
state's contribution is greater. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3.
Additionally, we note 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, based on
the information provided, it is clear that emissions from New Jersey
contribute to Brigantine Wilderness and have relatively small
contributions to other out-of-state Class I areas. However, due to the
low triggering threshold implied by the Rule and the lack of rigorous
modeling analyses, we do 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
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Because MANE-VU did not include all New Jersey's emissions
or contributions to visibility impairment in its analysis, we cannot
definitely state that New Jersey's contribution to visibility
impairment is not the most significant. However, that is very likely
the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless, we note that New Jersey did determine that sources and
emissions within the state contribute to visibility impairment at both
Brigantine and two out-of-state Class I areas. Furthermore, the state
took part in the emission control strategy consultation process as a
member of MANE-VU. As part of that process, MANE-VU developed a set of
emissions reduction measures identified as being necessary to make
reasonable progress in the five MANE-VU Class I areas. This strategy
consists of six Asks for states within MANE-VU and five Asks for states
outside the region that were found to impact visibility at Class I
areas within MANE-VU.\48\ New Jersey's submission discusses each of the
Asks and explains why or why not each is applicable and how it has
complied with the relevant components of the emissions control strategy
MANE-VU has laid out for its states. New Jersey worked with MANE-VU to
determine potential reasonable measures that could be implemented by
2028, considering the cost of compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and
the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. As
discussed in further

detail below, the EPA is proposing to find that New Jersey has
submitted a regional haze plan that meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2) related to the development of a long-term strategy. Thus,
although we have concerns regarding some aspects of MANE-VU's technical
analyses supporting states' contribution determinations, we propose to
find that New Jersey has nevertheless satisfied the applicable
requirements for making reasonable progress towards natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas that may be affected be emissions from the
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See appendix B, ``Asks--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress

    Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine the following for
``each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State'':
baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the
differences between current visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions, and the URP. This section also provides the
option for states to propose adjustments to the URP line for a Class I
area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or the impacts from wildland prescribed
fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
    Brigantine Wilderness Area has 2000-2004 baseline visibility
conditions of 14.33 deciviews on the 20% clearest days and 27.43
deciviews on the 20% most impaired days. New Jersey calculated an
estimated natural background visibility of 5.52 deciviews on the 20%
clearest days and 10.69 deciviews on the 20% most impaired days for the
Brigantine Wilderness Area.\49\ The current visibility conditions,
which are based on 2013-2017 monitoring data, were 11.48 deciviews on
the clearest days and 19.86 deciviews on the most impaired days, which
are 5.96 deciviews and 9.17 deciviews greater than natural conditions
on the respective sets of days.\50\ New Jersey calculated an annual URP
of 0.28 deciviews needed to reach natural visibility on the 20% most
impaired days.\51\ New Jersey's URP in 2028 on 20% most impaired
visibility days is 20.74 deciviews. New Jersey noted that its modeled
``2028 Base Case'' and ``2028 Control Case'' are both below the URP.
New Jersey did not choose to adjust its URP for international
anthropogenic impacts or to account for the impacts of wildland
prescribed fires. EPA is proposing to find that New Jersey has
submitted a regional haze plan that meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) related to the calculations of baseline, current, and
natural visibility conditions; progress to date; and the uniform rate
of progress for the second implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See ``Table 2-1: Comparison of Natural, Baseline, and
Current Visibility Conditions in Deciviews for the 20 percent
Clearest and 20 percent Most Impaired at Brigantine Wilderness
Area'' in the NJ Regional Haze SIP--Final March 2020.
    \50\ See ``Table 2-2: Current (2017) vs Natural Visibility
Conditions at Brigantine Wilderness Area'' in the NJ Regional Haze
SIP--Final March 2020.
    \51\ See ``Table 2-3: Uniform Rate of Progress for Brigantine
Wilderness Area'' in the NJ Regional Haze SIP--Final March 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze

a. New Jersey's Response to the Six MANE-VU Asks
    Each state having a Class I area within its borders or emissions
that may affect visibility in a Class I area must develop a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the Background section of this
notice, reasonable progress is achieved when all states contributing to
visibility impairment in a Class I area are implementing the measures
determined--through application of the four statutory factors to
sources of visibility impairing pollutants--to be necessary to make
reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each state's long-term
strategy must include the enforceable emission limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). All new (i.e., additional) measures that
are the outcome of four-factor analyses are necessary to make
reasonable progress and must be in the long-term strategy. If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis is that no new measures are
reasonable for a source, that source's existing measures are necessary
to make reasonable progress, unless the state can demonstrate that the
source will continue to implement those measures and will not increase
its emission rate. Existing measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress must also be in the long-term strategy. In
developing its long-term strategies, a state must also consider the
five additional factors in Sec.  51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its
reasonable progress determinations, the state must describe the
criteria used to determine which sources or group of sources were
evaluated (i.e., subjected to four-factor analysis) for the second
implementation period and how the four factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the emission reduction measures for
inclusion in the long-term strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
    The following section summarizes how New Jersey's SIP submission
addressed the requirements of Sec.  51.308(f)(2)(i); specifically, it
describes MANE-VU's development of the six Asks and how New Jersey
addressed each. The EPA's evaluation of New Jersey's SIP revision with
regard to the same is contained in the following Section IV.E.b. New
Jersey's SIP submission describes how it plans to meet the long-term
strategy requirements defined by the state and MANE-VU and provides
that ``[t]hese long-term strategies are referred to as the `Asks'.''
\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ NJ Regional Haze SIP submission at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States may rely on technical information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select sources for four-factor analysis and
to conduct that analysis, as well as to satisfy the documentation
requirements under Sec.  51.308(f). Where an RPO has performed source
selection and/or four-factor analyses (or considered the five
additional factors in Sec.  51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states,
those states may rely on the RPO's analyses for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Sec.  51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the
states have a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in
the RPO process have approved the technical analyses. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii). States may also satisfy the requirement of Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in interstate consultation with other states
that have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a given Class I area under the auspices of
intra- and inter-RPO engagement.
    New Jersey is a member of the MANE-VU RPO and participated in the
RPO's regional approach to developing a strategy for making reasonable
progress towards the national visibility goal in the MANE-VU Class I
areas. MANE-VU's strategy includes a combination of: (1) Measures for
certain source sectors and groups of sectors that the RPO determined
were reasonable for states to pursue, and (2) a request for member
states to conduct four-factor analyses for individual sources that it

identified as contributing to visibility impairment. MANE-VU refers to
each of the components of its overall strategy as an Ask of its member
states. On August 25, 2017, the Executive Director of MANE-VU, on
behalf of the MANE-VU states and tribal nations, signed a statement
that identifies six emission reduction measures that comprise the Asks
for the second implementation period.\53\ The Asks were ``designed to
identify reasonable emission reduction strategies that must be
addressed by the states and tribal nations of MANE-VU through their
regional haze SIP updates.'' \54\ The statement explains that ``[i]f
any State cannot agree with or complete a Class I State's Asks, the
State must describe the actions taken to resolve the disagreement in
the Regional Haze SIP.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See appendix D ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
    \54\ Id.
    \55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MANE-VU's recommendations as to the appropriate control measures
were based on technical analyses documented in the RPO's reports and
included as appendices to or referenced in New Jersey's regional haze
SIP submission. One of the initial steps of MANE-VU's technical
analysis was to determine which visibility-impairing pollutants should
be the focus of its efforts for the second implementation period. In
the first implementation period, MANE-VU determined that sulfates were
the most significant visibility impairing pollutant at the region's
Class I areas. To determine the impact of certain pollutants on
visibility at Class I areas for the purpose of second implementation
period planning, MANE-VU conducted an analysis comparing the pollutant
contribution on the clearest and most impaired days in the baseline
period (2000-2004) to the most recent period (2012-2016) \56\ at MANE-
VU and nearby Class I areas. MANE-VU found that while SO2
emissions were decreasing and visibility was improving, sulfates still
made up the most significant contribution to visibility impairment at
MANE-VU and nearby Class I areas. According to the analysis,
NOX emissions have begun to play a more significant role in
visibility impacts in recent years, especially at the Brigantine
Wilderness Area. The technical analyses used by New Jersey are included
in their submission and are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The period of 2012-2016 was the most recent period for
which data was available at the time of analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic United States (referred to as the Contribution Assessment).
August 2006. (Appendix G);
     Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in
MANE-VU Class I areas) (referred to as the Reasonable Progress Report)
MACTEC 2007. (Appendix H);
     Five-Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of
Options for Conducting BART Determinations. June 2007 (Appendix J);
     Assessment of Control Technology Options for BART-Eligible
Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and
Paper and Pulp Facilities. March 2005. (Appendix J);
     Beyond Sulfate: Maintaining Progress towards Visibility
and Health Goals. December 2012. (Appendix J);
     2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress for
Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas (Appendix H);
     Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR Optimization on Visibility
Impairing Nitrate Precursor Emissions. November 2017. (Appendix J);
     High Electric Demand Days and Visibility Impairment in
MANE-VU. December 2017. (Appendix J);
     Benefits of Combined Heat and Power Systems for Reducing
Pollutant Emissions in MANE-VU States. March 2016. (Appendix J);
     2016 MANE-VU Source Contribution Modeling Report--CALPUFF
Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial Sources
April 4, 2017 (Appendix F);
     Contribution Assessment Preliminary Inventory Analysis.
October 10, 2016. (Appendix G);
     EGU Data for Four-Factor Analyses Only CALPUFF Units.
(Appendix H);
     Four-Factor Data Collection Memo. March 2017. (Appendix
H);
     Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the 2008 MANE-VU Ask.
July 2016. (Appendix H).
    To support development of the Asks, MANE-VU gathered information on
each of the four statutory factors for six source sectors it
determined, based on an examination of annual emission inventories,
``had emissions that were reasonabl[y] anticipated to contribute to
visibility degradation in MANE-VU:'' electric generating units (EGUs),
industrial/commercial/institutional boilers (ICI boilers), cement
kilns, heating oil, residential wood combustion, and outdoor wood
combustion.\57\ MANE-VU also collected data on individual sources
within the EGU, ICI boiler, and cement kiln sectors.\58\ Information
for the six sectors included explanations of technically feasible
control options for SO2 or NOX, illustrative
cost-effectiveness estimates for a range of model units and control
options, sector-wide cost considerations, potential time frames for
compliance with control options, potential energy and non-air-quality
environmental impacts of certain control options, and how the remaining
useful lives of sources might be considered in a control analysis.\59\
Source-specific data included SO2 emissions \60\ and
existing controls \61\ for certain existing EGUs, ICI boilers, and
cement kilns. MANE-VU considered this information on the four factors
as well as the analyses developed by the RPO's Technical Support
Committee when it determined specific emission reduction measures that
were found to be reasonable for certain sources within two of the
sectors it had examined--EGUs and ICI boilers. The Asks were based on
this analysis and looked to either optimize the use of existing
controls, have states conduct further analysis on EGU or ICI boilers
with considerable visibility impacts, implement low sulfur fuel
standards, or lock-in lower emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See appendix H ``MANE-VU Four Factor Data Collection Memo
at 1, March 30, 2017.''
    \58\ See appendix H ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas, Jan.
31, 2016.''
    \59\ Id.
    \60\ See appendix H ``Four Factor Data Collection Memo.''
    \61\ See appendix H ``Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the 2008
MANE-VU Ask. July 2016.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MANE-VU Ask 1 is ``ensuring the most effective use of control
technologies on a year-round basis'' at EGUs with a nameplate capacity
larger than or equal to 25 megawatts (MW) with already installed
NOX and/or SO2 controls.\62\ In its submission,
New Jersey explained that the control limits required by its Reasonably
Available Control Technology rules, SIP-approved N.J.A.C 7:27-19,
Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Oxides of Nitrogen, include
year-round emission limits. Additionally, New Jersey's operating
permits require that units run their controls on a year-round basis
whenever the units are in operation to ensure the most effective use of
control technologies. New Jersey therefore concluded it is meeting Ask
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See appendix D ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MANE-VU Ask 2 consists of a request that states ``perform a four-
factor analysis for reasonable installation or upgrade to emissions
controls'' for specified sources. MANE-VU developed

its Ask 2 list of sources for analysis by performing modeling and
identifying facilities with the potential for 3.0 inverse megameters
(Mm-1) or greater impacts on visibility at any Class I area
in the MANE-VU region. The BL England facility located in Upper
Township, Cape May County, New Jersey was identified by MANE-VU \63\ as
having units--units 2 and 3--with the potential for 3.0 Mm-1
or greater visibility impact at any MANE-VU Class I area. The BL
England facility permanently shut down in May 2019. The NJDEP Southern
Air Compliance and Enforcement office conducted a site investigation at
BL England on September 20, 2019, and observed that units 1, 2, and 3
are decommissioned and rendered inoperable. On December 3, 2019, the
DEP terminated \64\ the air operating permit at BL England Generating
Station. New Jersey therefore concluded that it satisfies Ask 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Table 4-1 in Chapter 4 of the NJ Regional Haze SIP.
    \64\ See Appendix J9 ``BL England Operating Permit Termination
Letter--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ask 3 is for each MANE-VU state to pursue an ultra low-sulfur fuel
oil standard if it has not already done so in the first implementation
period. The Ask includes percent by weight standards for #2 distillate
oil (0.0015% sulfur by weight or 15 ppm), #4 residual oil (0.25-0.5%
sulfur by weight), and #6 residual oil (0.3-0.5% sulfur by weight). On
October 25, 2010, New Jersey adopted a rule \65\ to modify the sulfur-
in-fuel limits in accordance with the MANE-VU Ask. This rule lowered
the sulfur content of all distillate fuel oils (#2 fuel oil and
lighter) to 15 ppm beginning on July 1, 2016. The sulfur content of #4
fuel oil was lowered to 2,500 ppm and for #6 fuel oil to a range of
3,000 to 5,000 ppm sulfur content beginning July 1, 2014.\66\ New
Jersey therefore concluded that it is meeting Ask 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ SIP-approved N.J.A.C. 7:27-9 ``Sulfur in Fuels''.
    \66\ The maximum sulfur content of #6 fuel oil varies depending
on the county where the fuel oil is burned. The northern part of New
Jersey has a lower maximum sulfur content for residual fuel oil at
3,000 ppm. While the southern part of New Jersey has a maximum
sulfur content of 5,000 ppm. See N.J.A.C. 7:27-9 et seq. https://www.nj.gov/dep/aqm/rules27.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MANE-VU Ask 4 requests states to update permits to ``lock in''
lower emissions rates for NOX, SO2, and PM at
emissions sources larger than 250 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu)
per hour heat input that have switched to lower emitting fuels. New
Jersey's SIP submissions explains that EGUs and other large point
emission sources that have switched operations to lower emitting fuels
are already locked into the lower emission rates for NOX,
SO2, and PM by permits, enforceable agreements, and/or
rules. These units are required to amend their permits through the New
Source Review (NSR) process if they plan to switch back to coal or
another fuel that will increase emissions. A change in fuel, unless
already allowed in the permit, would be a modification.\67\ N.J.A.C.
7:27-22 requires that an application to modify the permit be submitted
prior to the change in fuel; New Jersey's preconstruction and operating
permit programs are consolidated such that one permit application
serves both purposes. New Jersey therefore concluded it is meeting Ask
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See N.J.A.C 7:27-22.1, defining ``Modify'' or
``modification'' to ``mean[ ] any physical change in, or change in
the method of operation of, existing equipment or control apparatus
that increases the amount of actual emissions of any air contaminant
emitted by that equipment or control apparatus or that results in
the emission of any air contaminant not previously emitted. This
term shall not include normal repair and maintenance. A modification
may be incorporated into an operating permit through a significant
modification, a minor modification, or a seven-day-notice change.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ask 5 requests that MANE-VU states ``control NOX
emissions for peaking combustion turbines that have the potential to
operate on high electric demand days'' by either: (1) Meeting
NOX emissions standards specified in the Ask for turbines
that run on natural gas and fuel oil, (2) performing a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation of or upgrade to emission
controls, or (3) obtaining equivalent emission reductions on high
electric demand days.\68\ The Ask requests states to strive for
NOX emission standards of no greater than 25 ppm for natural
gas and 42 ppm for fuel oil, or at a minimum, NOX emissions
standards of no greater than 42 ppm for natural gas and 96 ppm at for
fuel oil. New Jersey adopted regulations on March 20, 2009,\69\ to
control peaking combustion turbines that have the potential to operate
on high electric demand days,\70\ and the regulations were approved
into the SIP (75 FR 45483, August 3, 2010). New Jersey's SIP-approved
control levels require 0.75 pounds of NOX per MWh (25 ppmvd)
for natural gas, and 1.20 pounds of NOX per MWh (42 ppmvd)
for oil, for a combined cycle combustion turbine or a regenerative
cycle combustion turbine, and 1.00 pounds of NOX per MWh (25
ppmvd) for natural gas, and 1.60 pounds of NOX per MWh (42
ppmvd) for oil, for a simple cycle turbine combustion turbine.\71\ \72\
New Jersey therefore concluded it is meeting Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See appendix D ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
    \69\ See N.J.A.C. 7:27-19: Control and Prohibition of Air
Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen https://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqm/currentrules/Sub19.pdf.
    \70\ High electric demand days are days when higher than usual
electrical demands bring additional generation units online, many of
which are infrequently operated and may have significantly higher
emissions rates of the generation fleet.
    \71\ See paragraph (g) in N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.5: Stationary
combustion turbines https://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqm/currentrules/Sub19.pdf.
    \72\ See docket documents ``Existing Combined Cycle Turbines''
and ``Existing Simple Cycle Turbines.'' For further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The last Ask for states within MANE-VU (Ask 6) requests states to
report in their regional haze SIPs about programs that decrease energy
demand and increase the use of combined heat and power (CHP) and other
distributed generation technologies such as fuel cells, wind and solar.
New Jersey explains that on July 6, 2007, Governor Corzine signed the
Global Warming Response Act.\73\ The Act requires New Jersey to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, and by 80 percent by
2050. Measures to meet these requirements will also help reduce
SO2, PM, and NOX emissions and improve
visibility. On January 29, 2018, Governor Phil Murphy signed an
Executive Order \74\ directing New Jersey's return to full
participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
Specifically, the Executive Order directs DEP to initiate rulemaking by
February 28, 2018. In addition, Governor Murphy sent a letter, dated
February 16, 2018, to the RGGI states notifying them of New Jersey's
intent to rejoin RGGI ``as a partner in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, improving the health of residents, and growing the economy
in our region.'' New Jersey formally rejoined RGGI on June 17,
2019.\75\ \76\ RGGI is part of Governor Murphy's goal to achieve 100
percent clean energy by 2050. New Jersey's participation in RGGI will
shift the state's power sector towards clean and renewable energy
sources such as wind, solar, and fuel cells, and will help reduce
emissions and improve visibility. New Jersey therefore concluded it is
meeting Ask 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See N.J.S.A 26:2C-37.
    \74\ See https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/EO-7.pdf.
    \75\ See https://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqes/docs/letter-to-rggi-governors20180222.pdf.
    \76\ See https://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqes/docs/co2-budget-adoption.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. The EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Response to the Six MANE-VU
Asks and Compliance With Sec.  51.308(f)(2)(i)
    The EPA is proposing to find that New Jersey has satisfied the

requirements of Sec.  51.308(f)(2)(i) related to evaluating sources and
determining the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress by considering the four statutory factors. We are
proposing to find that New Jersey has satisfied the four-factor
analysis requirement through its analysis and actions to address MANE-
VU Asks 2 and 3. We also propose to find that New Jersey reasonably
concluded that it satisfied all six Asks.
    As explained above, New Jersey relied on MANE-VU's technical
analyses and framework (i.e., the Asks) to select sources and form the
basis of its long-term strategy. MANE-VU conducted an inventory
analysis to identify the source sectors that produced the greatest
amount of SO2 and NOX emissions in 2011;
inventory data were also projected to 2018. Based on this analysis,
MANE-VU identified the top-emitting sectors for each of the two
pollutants, which for SO2 include coal-fired EGUs,
industrial boilers, oil-fired EGUs, and oil-fired area sources
including residential, commercial, and industrial sources. Major-
emitting sources of NOX include on-road vehicles, non-road
vehicles, and EGUs.\77\ The RPO's documentation explains that ``[EGUs]
emitting SO2 and NOX and industrial point sources
emitting SO2 were found to be sectors with high emissions
that warranted further scrutiny. Mobile sources were not considered in
this analysis because any ask concerning mobile sources would be made
to EPA and not during the intra-RPO and inter-RPO consultation process
among the states and tribes.'' \78\ EPA proposes to find that New
Jersey reasonably evaluated the two pollutants--SO2 and
NOX--that currently drive visibility impairment within the
MANE-VU region and that it adequately explained and supported its
decision to focus on these two pollutants through its reliance on the
MANE-VU technical analyses cited in its submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See appendix G ``Contribution Assessment--Final.''
    \78\ See Appendix B ``Asks--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to evaluate and determine
the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress by applying the four statutory factors to sources in a control
analysis. As explained previously, the MANE-VU Asks are a mix of
measures for sectors and groups of sources identified as reasonable for
states to address in their regional haze plans. While MANE-VU
formulated the Asks to be ``reasonable emission reduction strategies''
to control emissions of visibility impairing pollutants,\79\ EPA
believes that two of the Asks, in particular, engage with the
requirement that states determine the emission reduction measures that
are necessary to make reasonable progress through consideration of the
four factors. As laid out in further detail below, the EPA is proposing
to find that MANE-VU's four-factor analysis conducted to support the