[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11914-11928]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4683]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0689; A-1-FRL-9638-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Vermont; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of a revision to the Vermont State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) on August 26, 2009, with a
supplemental submittal on January 3, 2012, that addresses regional haze
for the first planning period from 2008 through 2018. This revision
addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules
that require States to prevent any future, and remedy any existing,
manmade impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas (also
referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to
assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I areas.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2009-0689 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0631,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA
02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2009-0689. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public

docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal
holidays.
    In addition, copies of the State submittal are also available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
Air Pollution Control Division, Agency of Natural Resources, Building 3
South, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT 05676.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA
02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Background Information
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is EPA's analysis of Vermont's regional haze SIP
submittal?
    A. Vermont's Affected Class I Area
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility
Conditions
    1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Reasonable Progress Goals
    1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility
Impairments
    2. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls
    3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act Factors in the
Reasonable Progress Analysis
    D. BART
    E. Long-Term Strategy
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
    2. Modeling to Support the LTS and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Meeting the MANE-VU ``Ask''
    4. Additional Considerations for the LTS
    F. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
    H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean the EPA.

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles and their precursors (e.g.,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in some cases, ammonia and
volatile organic compounds). Fine particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
which also impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light.
Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance
that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental
effects such as acid deposition.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas (i.e.,
national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international
parks meeting certain size criteria) in the Western United States is
100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range
that would exist without manmade air pollution. In most of the eastern
Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less
than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would
exist under estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715, (July 1,
1999).

B. Background Information

    In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national
parks and wilderness areas. This section of 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
\1\ which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December
2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment
in Class I areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source
or small group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (RAVI). See 45 FR 80084 (Dec. 2,1980). These regulations

represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA
deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of
sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the
relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were
improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122,
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). Although States and Tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager'' (FLM). (42 U.S.C.
7602(i)). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. The Regional Haze Rule
revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the
regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze
requirements are summarized in Section II. The requirement to submit a
regional haze SIP applies to all 50 States, the District of Columbia
and the Virgin Islands. Forty CFR 51.308(b) requires States to submit
the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility
impairment no later than December 17, 2007. On January 15, 2009, EPA
found that 37 States, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin
Islands failed to submit this required implementation plan. See 74 FR
2392, (Jan. 15, 2009). In particular, EPA found that Vermont failed to
submit a plan that met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. See 74 FR
2393. On August 26, 2009, VT DEC submitted revisions to the Vermont SIP
to address regional haze as required by 40 CFR 51.308. Supplemental
documentation was submitted on January 3, 2012. EPA has reviewed
Vermont's submittal and proposes to find that it is consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 outlined in Section II.

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among States, tribal governments, and
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, States need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the States and Tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their States and Tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and other pollutants
leading to regional haze.
    The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO 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 Northeastern United States. Member
State and Tribal governments include: Connecticut, Delaware, the
District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode
Island, and Vermont.

II. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require States to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for the purpose of eliminating or
reducing visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP
requirements are discussed in further detail below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes
in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions.
Visibility is determined by measuring the visual range (or deciview),
which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark
object can be viewed against the sky. The deciview is a useful measure
for tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The deciview is used in expressing Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
(which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national
visibility goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions,
and tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain
measures that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal
of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas
caused by manmade air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions
that cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air pollution would no longer
impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program and as part of the process for
determining reasonable progress, States must calculate the degree of
existing visibility impairment at each Class I area within the State at
the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically review
progress every five years midway through each 10-year planning period.
To do this, the RHR requires States to determine the degree of
impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least
impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired (``worst'') visibility
days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In
addition, States must also develop an estimate of natural visibility
conditions for the purposes of comparing progress toward the national
goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then
calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has
provided guidance to States regarding how to calculate baseline,
natural, and current visibility conditions in documents titled,
Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility conditions under the
Regional Haze Rule,

September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005, available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's
2003 Natural Visibility Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress
Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003 (EPA-454/B-03-004,
available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf),
(hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of impairment for the 20 percent least
impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days at the time the
regional haze program was established. Using monitoring data from 2000
through 2004, States are required to calculate the average degree of
visibility impairment for each Class I area within the State, based on
the average of annual values over the five year period. The comparison
of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility
conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain
natural visibility, while the future comparison of baseline conditions
to the then current conditions will indicate the amount of progress
made. In general, the 2000-2004 baseline period is considered the time
from which improvement in visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the States that establish RPGs for Class I areas for each
(approximately) 10-year planning period. The RHR does not mandate
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for States
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward
achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility conditions for
their Class I areas. In setting RPGs, States must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the
(approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in the CAA and
in EPA's RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for
compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how these
factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst
days for each applicable Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
States have considerable flexibility in how they take these factors
into consideration, as noted in EPA's July 1, 2007 memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10, entitled Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program (p.
4-2, 5-1) (EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance). In setting the RPGs,
States must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural
visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ``uniform rate of
progress'' or the ``glide path'') and the emission reduction measures
needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the
SIP. The year 2064 represents a rate of progress which States are to
use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to
achieve. In setting RPGs, each State with one or more Class I areas
(``Class I State'') must also consult with potentially ``contributing
States,'' i.e., other nearby States with emission sources that may be
contributing to visibility impairment at the Class I State's areas. See
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs States to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, the CAA requires States to revise their SIPs to
contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress
towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that
certain categories of existing stationary sources built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best Available Retrofit
Technology'' as determined by the State. (CAA 169A(b)(2)a)).\3\ States
are directed to conduct BART determinations for such sources that may
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls,
States also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides
greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
States in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART applicability determination
for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total
generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a State must use
the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged,
but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of sources.
    States must address all visibility impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate matter (PM). EPA has
stated that States should use their best judgment in determining
whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH3)
and ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.
    The RPOs provided air quality modeling to the States to help them
in determining whether potential BART sources can be reasonably
expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I
area. Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption
threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible
source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I area. The State must document this exemption
threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold
value would be subject to a BART determination review. The BART
Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class
I areas. States should consider the number of emission sources
affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the
individual sources' impacts. Any exemption threshold set by the State
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. See 70 FR 39161, (July 6,
2005).
    In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control

determination analyses. The term ``BART-eligible source'' used in the
BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission units at a
facility that together comprises the BART-eligible source. See 70 FR
39161, (July 6, 2005). In making BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States consider the following
factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life
of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which
may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance to
be assigned to each factor. See 70 FR 39170, (July 6, 2005).
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
State has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP, as required by CAA (section 169(g)(4)) and the RHR (40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to what is required by the RHR, general
SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for
the BART controls on the source. States have the flexibility to choose
the type of control measures they will use to meet the requirements of
BART.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that States include a
LTS in their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures a
State will use to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS must include
``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for
all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the State. See
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a State's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another State, the RHR requires the impacted State to coordinate with
the contributing States in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing State must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between States may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two States
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, States must describe how
each of the seven factors listed below is taken into account in
developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG;
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; (7) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point,
area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS.
See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the State's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the State must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing reasonably attributable and regional
haze visibility impairment, and the State must submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated
LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs,
must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and
periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g),
respectively. The periodic reviews of a State's LTS must report on both
regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 40 CFR
51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
participation in the IMPROVE network. The monitoring strategy is due
with the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five
years. The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional
monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine
whether RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the State;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other States;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the State, and
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing 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 a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A State must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    Forty CFR 51.308(f) of the RHR requires control strategies to cover
an initial implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a
comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as
appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must
meet the core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) with the exception of
BART. The BART provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted above, apply
only to

the first implementation period. Periodic SIP revisions will assure
that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will continue to
be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that States consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.
Further, a State must include in its SIP a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and
FLMs regarding the State's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

III. What is EPA's analysis of Vermont's regional haze SIP submittal?

    On August 26, 2009, VT DEC's Office of Air resources submitted
revisions to the Vermont SIP to address regional haze as required by
EPA's RHR, specifically 40 CFR 51.308. Supplemental documentation was
submitted on January 3, 2012. EPA has reviewed Vermont's submittal and
is proposing to find that it is consistent with the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308 as outlined in Section II. A detailed analysis follows.
    Vermont is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP which
addresses visibility in Vermont's Class I area, Lye Brook Wilderness
Area. The state must also address Vermont's impact on any other nearby
Class I areas.

A. Vermont's Affected Class I Area

    Vermont is home to one Class I area, Lye Brook Wilderness Area
(``Lye Brook''). In addition to Lye Brook, the MANE-VU RPO contains six
other Class I areas in three states: Moosehorn Wilderness Area, Acadia
National Park, and Roosevelt/Campobello International Park in Maine;
Presidential Range/Dry River Wilderness Area and Great Gulf Wilderness
Area in New Hampshire; and Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey.
    The Vermont regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility
improvement at its Class I area and a LTS to achieve those RPGs within
the first regional haze implementation period ending in 2018. In
developing the RPGs for Lye Brook, Vermont considered both emission
sources inside and outside of Vermont that may cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in Vermont's Class I area. The State also
identified and considered emission sources within Vermont that may
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas in
neighboring States as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The MANE-VU RPO
worked with the State in developing the technical analyses used to make
these determinations, including state-by-state contributions to
visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which included Lye
Brook and those areas which may be affected by emissions from Vermont.
This analysis is discussed in Section III.C.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions

    As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, Vermont calculated baseline/current and natural
conditions for its Class I area.
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background refers to visibility conditions that existed
before human activities affected air quality in the region. The
national goal, as set out in the Clean Air Act, is a return to natural
visibility conditions.
    Estimates of natural visibility conditions are based on annual
average concentrations of fine particle components. The IMPROVE \4\
equation is a formula for estimating light extinction from species
measured by the IMPROVE monitors. As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, EPA determined, with concurrence from the IMPROVE
Steering Committee, that States may use a ``refined approach'' to the
then current IMPROVE formula to estimate the values that characterize
the natural visibility conditions of the Class I areas. The purpose of
the refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more
accurate estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation
of light extinction. The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the
most recent review of the science \5\ and accounts for the effect of
particle size distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate,
nitrate, and organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for
organic carbon (particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4
to 1.8. New terms are added to the equation to account for light
extinction by sea salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen
dioxide. Site-specific values are used for Rayleigh scattering
(scattering of light due to atmospheric gases) to account for the site-
specific effects of elevation and temperature. Separate relative
humidity enhancement factors are used for small and large size
distributions of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea
salt. The terms for the remaining contributors, elemental carbon
(light-absorbing carbon), fine soil, and coarse mass terms, do not
change between the original and new IMPROVE equations. Vermont opted to
use this refined approach, referred to as the ``new IMPROVE equation,''
for its Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE) program is a cooperative measurement effort governed by a
steering committee composed of representatives from Federal
(including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The
IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid the
creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources
responsible for existing man-made visibility impairment. The IMPROVE
program has also been a key participant in visibility-related
research, including the advancement of monitoring instrumentation,
analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy formulation and
source attribution field studies.
    \5\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is
summarized in numerous published papers. See, e.g., J. L. Hand & W.
C. Malm, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light
Extinction Coefficients--Final Report, March 2006 (Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado
State University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the
Atmosphere, Fort Collins, CO), available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; Marc Pitchford, Natural Haze
Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Alogrithm to Natural
Species Concentrations Estimates: Final Report of the Natural Haze
Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup,
Sept. 2006, available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Natural visibility conditions using the new IMPROVE equation were
calculated separately for each Class I area by MANE-VU. EPA finds that
the best and worst 20 percent natural visibility values for Lye Brook,
as shown in Table 1, were calculated using the EPA guidelines.
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    Lye Brook does not contain an IMPROVE monitor. In cases where
onsite monitoring is not available, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) requires
States to use the most representative monitoring available for the
2000-2004 period to

establish baseline visibility conditions, in consultation with EPA.
Vermont used, and EPA concurs with the use of, 2000-2004 data from the
IMPROVE monitor at Mount Equinox for Lye Brook. The Mount Equinox
IMPROVE monitor is located on a mountain ridge across the valley to the
west of Lye Brook. Lye Brook is at high elevation in the Green
Mountains and the IMPROVE site across the valley is at about the same
height as Lye Brook.
    As explained in Section II.B, for the first regional haze SIP,
baseline visibility conditions are the same as current conditions. A
five-year average of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated
for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days
for Lye Brook. IMPROVE data records for the period 2000 to 2004 meet
the EPA requirements for data completeness. See EPA's 2003 Tracking
Progress Guidance, p. 2-8.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    For the Vermont Class I area, baseline visibility conditions on the
20 percent worst days is 24.4 deciviews. Natural visibility for this
area is predicted to be 11.7 on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
The natural and background conditions for Lye Brook for both the 20
percent worst and 20 percent best days are presented in Table 1 below.

  Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for the Lye Brook
                             Wilderness Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Average for 20    Average for
                                           percent worst  the 20 percent
                                             days (dv)    best days (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Background Conditions...........            11.7             2.8
Baseline Visibility Conditions..........            24.4             6.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, Vermont considered the uniform rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (``glide
path'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate
of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's Reasonable Progress
Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is not a presumptive
target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to the glide
path.
    For Lye Brook, the overall visibility improvement necessary to
reach natural conditions is the difference between the baseline
visibility of 24.4 dv and natural background visibility of 11.7 dv, or
an improvement of 12.7 dv for the 20 percent worst visibility days. VT
DEC must also ensure no degradation in visibility for the best 20
percent visibility days over the same period in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1).
    Vermont's SIP submittal presents two graphs, one for the 20 percent
best days, and one for the 20 percent worst days, for its Class I area.
Vermont constructed the graphs for the worst days (i.e., the glide
path) in accordance with EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by
plotting a straight graphical line from the baseline level of
visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of natural visibility
conditions in 2064. For the best days, the graphs include a horizontal,
straight line spanning from baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 to
depict no degradation in visibility over the implementation period of
the SIP. Vermont's SIP shows that the State's RPG for its Class I areas
provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 percent worst days
over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the 20 percent best visibility days over the same period
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).

C. Reasonable Progress Goals

    As a state containing a Class I area, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) of the
RHR requires Vermont to develop the reasonable progress goals for
visibility improvement during the first planning period.
1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further
reducing emissions from different pollutants, MANE-VU developed
emission sensitivity model runs using EPA's Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) air quality model \6\ to evaluate visibility and air
quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant
scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CMAQ is a photochemical grid model. The model uses
simulations of chemical reactions, emissions of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors, and the Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological
Model to produce speciated PM2.5 concentrations. For more
information, see www.epa.gov/asmdnerl/CMAQ/cmaq_model.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting
visibility in the MANE-VU region, MANE-VU's contribution assessment
demonstrated that sulfate is the major contributor to PM2.5
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic Region.\7\ Sulfate particles commonly account for more
than 50 percent of particle-related light extinction at northeastern
Class I areas on the clearest days and for as much as, or more than, 80
percent on the haziest days. For example, at the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge Class I area (the MANE-VU Class I area with the
greatest visibility impairment), on the 20 percent worst visibility
days in 2000 through 2004, sulfate accounted for 66 percent of the
particle extinction. After sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently
accounts for the next largest fraction of light extinction. Organic
carbon accounted for 13 percent of light extinction on the 20 percent
worst visibility days for Brigantine, followed by nitrate that accounts
for 9 percent of light extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the NESCAUM Document ``Regional Haze and Visibility in
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States,'' January 31, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by MANE-VU predict
that reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU
industrial point sources will result in the greatest improvements in
visibility in the Class I areas in the MANE-VU region, more than any
other visibility-impairing pollutant. As a result of the dominant role
of sulfate in the formation of regional haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic Region, MANE-VU concluded that an effective emissions
management approach would rely heavily on broad-based regional
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United States.
    Through source apportionment modeling, MANE-VU assisted States in
determining their contribution to the visibility impairment of each
Class I area in the MANE-VU region. Vermont and the other MANE-VU
States adopted

a weight-of-evidence approach which relied on several independent
methods for assessing the contribution of different sources and
geographic source regions to regional haze in the northeastern and mid-
Atlantic portions of the United States. Details about each technique
can be found in the NESCAUM Document Contributions to Regional Haze in
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States, August 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as the ``Contribution Report'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The August 2006 NESCAUM document ``Contributions to Regional
Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States'' has been
provided as part of the docket to this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MANE-VU Class I States determined that any state contributing
at least 2% of the total sulfate observed on the 20 percent worst
visibility days in 2002 were contributors to visibility impairment at
the Class I area. States found to contribute 2% or more of the sulfate
at any of the MANE-VU Class I areas were: Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ MANE-VU modeling did not indicate Wisconsin's contribution
was above this threshold. VT DEC undertook independent modeling that
showed Wisconsin's contribution to Vermont's visibility impairment
was above this threshold. Therefore, Vermont requested Wisconsin
join the interstate consultation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contribution of Vermont emissions to the total sulfate observed
on the 20% worst visibility days in 2002 was determined to be less than
2%, therefore, not impacting the visibility in the Vermont Class I
area, nor any other Class I area.
    EPA proposes to find that VT DEC has adequately demonstrated that
emissions from Vermont sources do not cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I Area.
2. Procedure for Identifying Sources to Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls
    In developing the 2018 reasonable progress goal, Vermont relied
primarily upon the information and analysis developed by MANE-VU to
meet this requirement. Based on the Contribution Report, MANE-VU
focused on SO2 as the dominant contributor to visibility
impairment at all MANE-VU Class I areas during all seasons. In
addition, the Contribution Report found that only 25 percent of the
sulfate at the MANE-VU Class I areas originate in the MANE-VU States.
Sources in the Midwest and Southeast regions were responsible for 15 to
25 percent, respectively. Point sources dominated the inventory of
SO2 emissions. Therefore, MANE-VU's strategy includes
additional measures to control sources of SO2 both within
the MANE-VU region and in other States that were determined to
contribute to regional haze at the MANE-VU Class I Areas.
    Based on information from the Contribution Report and additional
emission inventory analysis, MANE-VU and Vermont identified the
following source categories for further examination for reasonable
controls:
     Coal and oil-fired EGUs;
     Point and area source industrial, commercial and
institutional boilers;
     Cement and Lime Kilns;
     Heating Oil; and
     Residential wood combustion.

MANE-VU analyzed these sources categories as potential sources of
emission reductions for making reasonable progress based on the ``four
statutory factors'' according to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(V).
3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act Factors in the Reasonable
Progress Analysis
    As discussed in Section II.C above, Vermont must consider the
following factors in developing the RPGs: (1) Cost of compliance; (2)
the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life
of any potentially affected sources. MANE-VU's four factor analysis can
be found in Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in
MANE-VU Class I Areas, July 9, 2007, otherwise known as the Reasonable
Progress Report.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This report has been included as part of the docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vermont and the other MANE-VU States reviewed the Reasonable
Progress Report, consulted with one another about possible controls
measures, and agreed to the following measures as recommended
strategies for making reasonable progress: Implementation of the BART
requirements; a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions from
167 EGUs identified as causing the greatest visibility impact \11\ (or
other equivalent emission reduction); and a reduction in the sulfur
content of fuel oil. These measures are collectively known as the MANE-
VU ``Ask.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ MANE-VU identified these 167 units based on source
apportionment modeling using two different meteorological data sets.
From each of the modeling runs, MANE-VU identified the top 100 units
which contribute to visibility impairment. Differences in model
output resulted in a total of 167 units being identified for further
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MANE-VU used model projections to calculate the RPG for the Class I
areas in the MANE-VU region. Additional modeling details are provided
in Section III.E.2. The projected improvement in visibility due to
emission reductions expected by the end of the first period, 2018, is
shown in Table 2.

Table 2--Projected Reasonable Progress Goal and Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) for the Vermont Class I Area From
                                NESCAUM 2018 Visibility Projections in Deciviews
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2000-2004         2018                           Natural
                                                     baseline       Projection          URP         background
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lye Brook Wilderness Area.....  20% Worst                   24.4            20.9           21.43            11.7
                                 Visibility Days.
                                20% Best                     6.4             5.5  ..............             2.8
                                 Visibility Days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of MANE-VU modeling, some of the other States with
sources potentially impacting visibility in the Class I areas of the
MANE-VU region, including Lye Brook Wilderness Area in Vermont, had not
yet made final control determinations for BART, and thus, these
controls were not included in the modeling prepared by MANE-VU and used
by Vermont. This is a conservative approach because additional emission
reductions could result from the application of BART controls. The
modeling conducted by MANE-VU demonstrates that the 2018 control
scenario (2018 projection) provides for an improvement in visibility
greater than the uniform rate of progress for the Vermont Class I area
for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan
and ensures no

degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same
period.
    Consistent with EPA guidance at the time, the MANE-VU modeling
included reductions from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in
estimating the RPGs for 2018. The regional haze provisions specify that
a state may not adopt a RPG that represents less visibility improvement
than is expected to result from other CAA requirements during the
implementation period. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, in
estimating the RPGs for 2018, many States took into account emission
reductions anticipated from CAIR. MANE-VU initially reduced emissions
from highest impacting 167 EGUs by ninety percent. However, many of the
units targeted for the 90% reduction were part of the CAIR program.
Since the 90% reduction was larger, in total tons of emissions reduced,
than the reductions expected from CAIR, MANE-VU added the excess
emissions back into the inventory to account for trading of the
emission credits across the modeling domain. This way, MANE-VU States
would not overestimate the emission reductions or the related
visibility improvement if States used the CAIR program as their
response to the MANE-VU's ``Ask'' of ninety percent reduction from the
167 EGUs in the eastern United States.
    The RPGs for the Lye Brook Class I area in Vermont are based on
modeled projections of future emissions that were developed using the
best available information at the time the analysis was completed.
While MANE-VU's emission inventory used for modeling included estimates
of future emission growth, projections can change as additional
information regarding future conditions becomes available. It would be
both impractical and resource-intensive to require a state to
continually adjust the RPG every time an event affecting these future
projections changed. EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement
to meet a long-term goal based on modeled projections of future
visibility conditions, and addressed the uncertainties associated with
RPGs in several ways. EPA made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a
mandatory standard which must be achieved by a particular date. See 64
FR 35733. At the same time, EPA established a requirement for a five-
year, midcourse review and, if necessary, correction of the States'
regional haze plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls
for a five-year progress review after submittal of the initial regional
haze plan. The purpose of this progress review is to assess the
effectiveness of emission management strategies in meeting the RPG and
to provide an assessment of whether current implementation strategies
are sufficient for the state or affected states to meet their RPGs. If
a state concludes, based on its assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I
area will not be met, the RHR requires the state to take appropriate
action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate action will
depend on the basis for the state's conclusion that the current
strategies are insufficient to meet the RPGs. In its SIP submittal,
Vermont commits to the midcourse review and submitting revisions to the
regional haze plan where necessary.
    The RPGs that Vermont has adopted are predicated on other
contributing states achieving the EGU emission reductions anticipated
under CAIR. However, Vermont's regional haze plan does not rely on CAIR
for Vermont's appropriate contribution toward meeting the RPGs for the
Class I area in Vermont or any other state. Vermont has demonstrated
that the emission controls in the MANE-VU ``Ask''--timely installation
of BART Controls, a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions
from EGUs and a low sulfur fuel oil strategy--are reasonable measures
for the reduction of visibility impairment as required by EPA's RHR.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Vermont's RPG for the first
regional haze planning period irrespective of the status of CAIR and
irrespective of the associated issues regarding the adequacy of other
state's plans. For similar reasons, EPA believes the approvability of
the Vermont plan is not affected by the status of the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule, which was promulgated on August 8, 2011 at 76 FR 48208
and stayed on December 30, 2011.

D. BART

    As part of developing its SIP, Vermont evaluated the major point
sources in the State and determined that none meet the criteria (as
described in Section II.D) to be considered BART-eligible.\12\ EPA
agrees with VT DEC's determination and proposes to find that there are
no sources in Vermont which meet the BART eligibility criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A list of the BART-eligible sources in the MANE-VU area can
be found in Appendix A of Attachment T-MANE-VU Five Factor Analysis
of BART Eligible Sources of the Vermont SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Long-Term Strategy

    As described in Section II.E of this action, the LTS is a
compilation of State-specific control measures relied on by the State
to obtain its share of emission reductions to support the RPGs
established by Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and New Jersey, the
nearby Class I area States. Vermont's LTS for the first implementation
period addresses the emissions reductions from federal, State, and
local controls that take effect in the State from the baseline period
starting in 2002 until 2018. Vermont participated in the MANE-VU
regional strategy development process and supported a regional approach
towards deciding which control measures to pursue for regional haze,
which was based on technical analyses documented in the following
reports: (a) The Contribution Report; (b) the Reasonable Progress
Report; (c) Five-Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of
Options for Conducting BART Determinations (available at
www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-final-memo-06-28-07.pdf); and (d)
Assessment of Control Technology Options for BART-Eligible Sources:
Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper,
and Pulp Facilities (available at www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf).
    The LTS was developed by Vermont, in coordination with MANE-VU,
identifying the emissions units within Vermont that are currently
likely to have the largest impacts on visibility at nearby Class I
areas, estimating emissions reductions for 2018, based on all controls
required under federal and State regulations for the 2002-2018 period,
and comparing projected visibility improvement with the uniform rate of
progress for the nearby Class I area.
    Vermont's LTS includes measures needed to achieve its share of
emissions reductions agreed upon through the consultation process with
MANE-VU Class I States and includes enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals established by New Hampshire, Maine and New
Jersey for their Class I areas.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
    The State-wide emissions inventories used in the regional haze
technical analyses were developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU with assistance
from Vermont. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting
2002 emissions forward based on assumptions regarding emissions growth
due to projected increases in economic activity and emission reductions
expected from federal and State regulations. MANE-VU's emissions
inventories included

estimates of NOX, coarse particulate matter
(PM10), PM2.5, and SO2, VOC, and
NH3. The BART guidelines direct States to exercise judgment
in deciding whether VOC and NH3 impair visibility in their
Class I area(s). As discussed further in Section III.C.1 above, MANE-VU
demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of sulfates are the major
contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at Class
I areas in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. It was also
determined that the total ammonia emissions in the MANE-VU region are
extremely small.
    MANE-VU developed emissions inventories for four inventory source
classifications: (1) Stationary point sources, (2) stationary area
sources, (3) non-road mobile sources, and (4) on-road mobile sources.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation also developed an
inventory of biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU region.
Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater than a
specified tonnage per year, depending on the pollutant, with data
provided at the facility level. Stationary area sources are those
sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the
large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source
category could be significant. Non-road mobile sources are equipment
that can move but do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source
emissions are automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway
system. The emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type
and road type. Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops,
grasses, and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources emission
data is tracked at the facility level. For all other source types,
emissions are summed on the county level.
    There are many federal and State control programs being implemented
that MANE-VU and Vermont anticipate will reduce emissions between the
baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these control
programs in the MANE-VU region were projected to achieve substantial
visibility improvement by 2018 at all of the MANE-VU Class I areas. To
assess emissions reductions from ongoing air pollution control
programs, BART, and reasonable progress goals, MANE-VU developed 2018
emissions projections called ``Best and Final.'' The emissions
inventory provided by the VT DEC for the ``Best and Final'' 2018
projections is based on expected control requirements.
    Vermont relied on emission reductions from the following ongoing
and expected air pollution control programs as part of the state's long
term strategy. Non-EGU point source controls in Vermont include:
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Boiler requirements; 2-
year, 4-year, 7-year, and 10-year Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) Standards; Combustion Turbine and Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engine (RICE) MACT; Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT;
and a low sulfur fuel oil strategy which is further described in
Section III.E.3.
    On July 30, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia vacated and remanded the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule. NRDC v.
EPA, 489F.3d 1250 (DC Cir. 2007). This MACT was vacated since it was
directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) definition rule. EPA
proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on
June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011
(76 FR 15608). On May 18, 2011, EPA stayed the effective date of the
Industrial Boiler MACT pending review by the DC Circuit or the
completion of EPA's reconsideration of the rule. See 76 FR 28662.
    On December 2, 2011, EPA issued a proposed reconsideration of the
MACT standards for existing and new boilers at major (76 FR 80598) and
area (76 FR 80532) source facilities, and for Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incinerators (76 FR 80452). On January 9, 2012, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia vacated EPA's stay of the
effectiveness date of the Industrial Boiler MACT, reinstating the
original effective date and therefore requiring compliance with the
current rule in 2014. Sierra Club v. Jackson, Civ. No. 11-1278, slip
op. (D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2012).
    Even though Vermont's modeling is based on the old Industrial
Boiler MACT limits Vermont's modeling conclusions are unlikely to be
affected because the expected reductions in SO2 and PM
resulting from the vacated MACT rule are a relatively small component
of the Vermont inventory and the expected emission reductions from the
final MACT rule are comparable to those modeled. In addition, the new
MACT rule requires compliance by 2014 and therefore the expected
emission reductions will be achieved prior to the end of the first
implementation period in 2018. Thus, EPA does not expect that
differences between the old and revised Industrial Boiler MACT emission
limits would affect the adequacy of the existing Vermont regional haze
SIP. If there is a need to address discrepancies between projected
emissions reductions from the old Industrial Boiler MACT and the
Industrial Boiler MACT finalized in March 2011, we expect Vermont to do
so in their 5-year progress report.
    Controls on area sources expected by 2018 include: solvent metal
cleaning (APC regulation 5-253.14); coating of miscellaneous metal
parts (APC regulation 5-253.13); and VOC control measures for portable
fuel containers (contained in EPA's Mobile Source Air Toxics rule).
    Controls on mobile sources expected by 2018 include: Stage I vapor
recovery systems at vehicle refueling stations (APC regulation 5-
253.5); Stage II vapor recovery at gasoline dispensing facility with an
annual gasoline throughput of 400,000 gallons or more (APC regulation
5-253.7) \13\; Federal On-Board Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Rule;
Federal Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur
Requirements; Federal Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Emission Standards for
Trucks and Buses; and Federal Emission Standards for Large Industrial
Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreation Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Vermont's recently enacted legislation, Title 10 V.S.A.
Sec.  583, ``Repeal of Stage II vapor recovery requirements,''
repeals the DEC's authority to require Stage II controls as of
January 1, 2013, and exempts from control facilities constructed
after May 1, 2009. In addition, Vermont's statute states that ``each
gasoline dispensing facility shall decommission its Stage II vapor
recovery systems, including below-ground components, pursuant to
methods approved by the secretary'' within two years of the Stage II
requirements no longer applying to the individual gasoline
dispensing facility. It should be noted, however, that the CAA
requires states in the Ozone Transport Region, such as Vermont, to
adopt, and submit to EPA as a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision, Stage II controls or measures that achieve comparable
emission reductions. Previously, Vermont's strategy for addressing
this requirement has been to implement a Stage II vapor recovery
program. However, since Vermont statute now calls for the sunset of
this program, the DEC will need to submit a SIP revision
demonstrating that the state is achieving comparable volatile
organic compound (VOC) emission reductions through the
implementation of other control measures. Therefore, consideration
of these reductions in the model is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Controls on non-road sources expected by 2018 include the following
federal regulations: Control of Air Pollution: Determination of
Significance for Nonroad Sources and Emission Standards for New Nonroad
Compression Ignition Engines at or above 37 kilowatts (59 FR 31306,
(June 17, 1994)); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad
Diesel Engines (63 FR 56967, (Oct. 23, 1998)); Control of Emissions
from Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines (67
FR 68241, (Nov. 8, 2002));

and Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines
and Fuels (69 FR 38958, (June 29, 2004)).
    Tables 3 and 4 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018
estimated emissions inventories for Vermont. The 2018 estimated
emissions include emissions growth as well as emission reductions due
to ongoing emission control strategies and reasonable progress goals.

                              Table 3--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for Vermont
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX         PM2.5         PM10         NH3          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................        1,097          787          267          304        6,194          905
Area..............................       23,265        3,028       11,065       56,131        9,848        4,087
On-Road Mobile....................       17,288       20,670          483          670          934          894
Non-Road Mobile...................       10,548        4,217          486          530            5          372
Biogenics.........................      118,377        1,142            0            0            0            0
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................      170,574       30,024       12,300       57,634       16,981        6,258
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Table 4--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for Vermont
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX         PM2.5         PM10         NH3          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................        1,711          572          271          322            9          407
Area..............................       26,197        3,430        7,214       22,585       14,580        2,990
On-Road Mobile....................        4,072        4,744          144          145          936           82
Non-Road Mobile...................        7,566        2,262          303          331            6           13
Biogenics.........................      118,377        1,142            0            0            0            0
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................      157,922       12,149        7,932       23,383       15,531        3,493
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
    MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 11
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast States and the District of Columbia. The
modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with
selection of the modeling system. MANE-VU used the following modeling
system:
     Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic,
prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-
scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory
modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions (SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system is an emissions modeling
system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission
sources for photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable
of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional
scale.
     Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and
Deposition (REMSAD) is a Eulerian grid model that was primarily used to
determine the attribution of sulfate species in the Eastern US via the
species-tagging scheme.
     Air Quality Model: The California Puff Model (CALPUFF),
version 5 is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model used to access
the contribution of individual States' emissions to sulfate levels at
selected Class I receptor sites.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that
covers the 11 MANE-VU States (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and States adjacent
to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling
grid of 36x36 km grid cells that covers the continental United States,
portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a representative
period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality
conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes
in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. MANE-VU conducted an
in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the entire year of
2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology
available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU States'
modeling was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use of
Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, April 2007 (EPA-
454/B-07-002, available at www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf), and EPA document, Emissions Inventory Guidance
for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, August 2005
and updated November 2005 (EPA-454/R-05-001, available at www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html) (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's
Modeling Guidance'').
    MANE-VU examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping

with the objective of the CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model
performance was evaluated using graphical and statistical assessments
based on measured ozone, fine particles, and acid deposition from
various monitoring networks and databases for the 2002 base year. MANE-
VU used a diverse set of statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling
Guidance to stress and examine the model and modeling inputs. Once
MANE-VU determined the model performance to be acceptable, MANE-VU used
the model to assess the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air
quality modeling predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate
of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), VT DEC provided the
appropriate supporting documentation for all required analyses used to
determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and modeling used to
develop the glide path and to support the LTS are consistent with EPA's
RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA is proposing to
find the MANE-VU technical modeling to support the LTS and determine
visibility improvement for the uniform rate of progress acceptable
because the modeling system was chosen and used according to EPA
Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with the MANE-VU model performance
procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate tool for
the regional haze assessments for the Vermont LTS and regional haze
SIP.
3. Meeting the MANE-VU ``Ask''
    Vermont in cooperation with the MANE-VU States developed the MANE-
VU ``Ask'' to provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural
visibility at the MANE-VU Class I areas. The ``Ask'' included: (a)
Timely implementation of BART requirements; (b) a 90 percent reduction
in SO2 emissions from each of the EGU stacks identified by
MANE-VU comprising a total of 167 stacks; (c) adoption of a low sulfur
fuel oil strategy; and (d) continued evaluation of other control
measures to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions.
a. Timely Implementation of BART
    Vermont does not have any BART-eligible units identified as
contributing to visibility impairment in any Class I area.
b. Ninety Percent Reduction in SO2 Emissions From Each of
the EGU Stacks Identified by MANE-VU Comprising a Total of 167 Stacks
    MANE-VU did not identify any additional EGU stacks in Vermont and
consequently did not include any Vermont sources on the list of 167
stacks.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Appendix G--``2018 Emissions from EGUs in the Eastern
US'' of the Vermont SIP submittal for a complete listing of the 167
stacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Vermont Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy
    The MANE-VU low sulfur fuel oil strategy includes two phases. Phase
I of the strategy requires the reduction of sulfur in distillate oil to
0.05% sulfur by weight (500 parts per million (ppm)) by no later than
2014. Phase II requires reductions of sulfur in 4 residual oil
to 0.25% sulfur by weight, in 6 residual oil to 0.5% sulfur by
weight, and a further reduction in the sulfur content of distillate oil
to 15 ppm, all by 2018.
    On September 28, 2011, Vermont adopted revisions to Section 5-221,
``Prohibition of Potentially Polluting Materials in Fuel,'' and
submitted the revised rule to EPA as a SIP revision on January 3, 2012.
This rule was previously approved into the Vermont SIP. See 43 FR
59496, (Dec. 21, 1978). The revisions to the rule added the following
prohibition of the sale or purchase of residual (4,
5, and 6) and distillate oil:
    (1) Beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2018, a person may
not sell or purchase No. 2 distillate oils and animal and vegetable
fuel oils with a sulfur content greater than 0.05% by weight;
    (2) Beginning July 1, 2018, a person may not sell or purchase No. 2
distillate oils and animal and vegetable fuel oils with a sulfur
content greater than 0.0015% by weight.
    (3) Beginning July 1, 2018, a person may not sell or purchase No 4.
residual oil with a sulfur content greater than 0.25%, and
    (4) Beginning July 1, 2018, a person may not sell or purchase No. 5
and No. 6 residual oils with a sulfur content greater than 0.5% by
weight.
    The regulation allows for the continued use (but not sale) of fuel
stored in Vermont that met the applicable sulfur content limit at the
time the fuel was stored in Vermont. The regulation also allows for the
use of a flue gas control to meet an emission limit comparable to the
above sulfur in fuel oil limits.
    The regulation allows the Governor, by executive order, to
temporarily suspend the implementation and enforcement of this section
if the Governor determines, after consulting with the Secretary and
commissioner of public service, that meeting the requirement is not
feasible due to inadequate supply of the required fuel. In its SIP
submittal for the rule, Vermont indicated that given the formal and
public nature of executive orders, one would expect this authority
would be used sparingly. In addition, the law specifically states that
any suspension from the requirements must be temporary. The suspension
may not be permanent or open-ended. EPA agrees that it is unlikely that
this regulation would be suspended for any excessive period of time.
    Finally, Vermont's revised regulation includes the appropriate
recordkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with the
rule.
    The emission limits in Vermont's revised Section 5-221 are more
stringent than the 2% sulfur by weight limit contained in Vermont's
existing SIP-approved rule, thus meeting the anti-back sliding
requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA. Therefore, EPA proposes that
the revised rule be incorporated into the Vermont SIP.
    VT DEC continues to evaluate other control measures to reduce
SO2 and NOX emissions. EPA proposes to find that
Vermont has sufficiently addressed the applicable provisions of the
MANE-VU ``Ask'' and has therefore demonstrated a plan to achieve
reasonable progress toward natural visibility.
4. Additional Considerations for the LTS
    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires States to consider the following
factors in developing the long term strategy:
    a. Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control
programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable
visibility impairment;
    b. Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities;
    c. Emission limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the
reasonable progress goal;
    d. Source retirement and replacement schedules;
    e. Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes including plans as currently exist within the State
for these purposes;
    f. Enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures;
and
    g. 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.

a. Emission Reductions Including RAVI
    No source in Vermont has been identified as subject to RAVI. A list
of Vermont's ongoing air pollution control programs is included in
Section III.E.1.
b. Construction Activities
    The Regional Haze Rule requires Vermont to consider measures to
mitigate the impacts of construction activities on regional haze. MANE-
VU's consideration of control measures for construction activities is
documented in ``Technical Support Document on Measures to Mitigate the
Visibility Impacts of Construction Activities in the MANE-VU Region,
Draft, October 20, 2006.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This document has been provided as part of the docket to
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The construction industry is already subject to requirements for
controlling pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment. For
example, federal regulations require the reduction of SO2
emissions from construction vehicles.
    MANE-VU's Contribution Report found that, from a regional haze
perspective, crustal material generally does not play a major role. On
the 20 percent best-visibility days during the 2000-2004 baseline
period, crustal material accounted for 6 to 11 percent of the particle-
related light extinction at the MANE-VU Class I Areas. On the 20
percent worst-visibility days, however, the contribution was reduced to
2 to 3 percent. Furthermore, the crustal fraction is largely made up of
pollutants of natural origin (e.g., soil or sea salt) that are not
targeted under the Regional Haze Rule. Nevertheless, the crustal
fraction at any given location can be heavily influenced by the
proximity of construction activities; and construction activities
occurring in the immediate vicinity of MANE-VU Class I area could have
a noticeable effect on visibility.
    For this regional haze SIP, Vermont concluded that its current
regulations are currently sufficient to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities. Any future deliberations on potential control
measures for construction activities and the possible implementation
will be documented in the first regional haze SIP progress report. EPA
proposes to find that Vermont has adequately addressed measures to
mitigate the impacts of construction activities.
c. Emission Limitations and Schedules for Compliance To Achieve the RPG
    In addition to the existing CAA control requirements discussed in
Section III.E.1, Vermont has adopted a low sulfur fuel oil strategy
consistent with the MANE-VU ``Ask.'' The compliance date for Phase I
will be in 2014 and the compliance date for Phase II will be in 2018.
EPA is proposing to determine that Vermont has satisfactorily
considered emissions limitations and schedules as part of the LTS.
d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedule
    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) of the Regional Haze Rule requires
Vermont to consider source retirement and replacement schedules in
developing the long term strategy. Source retirement and replacement
were considered in developing the 2018 emission inventory. EPA is
proposing to determine that Vermont has satisfactorily considered
source retirement and replacement schedules as part of the LTS.
e. Smoke Management Techniques
    The Regional Haze Rule requires States to consider smoke management
techniques related to agricultural and forestry management in
developing the long-term strategy. MANE-VU's analysis of smoke
management in the context of regional haze is documented in ``Technical
Support Document on Agricultural and Smoke Management in the MANE-VU
Region, September 1, 2006.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This document has been included as part of the docket to
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vermont does not currently have a Smoke Management Program (SMP).
However, SMPs are required only when smoke impacts from fires managed
for resources benefits contribute significantly to regional haze. The
emissions inventory presented in the above-cited document indicates
that agricultural, managed and prescribed burning emissions are very
minor; the inventory estimates that, in Vermont, those emissions from
those source categories totaled 4.6 tons of PM10, 4.0 tons
of PM2.5, and < 0.1 ton of SO2 in 2002.
    Source apportionment results show that wood smoke is a moderate
contributor to visibility impairment at some Class I areas in the MANE-
VU region; however, smoke is not a large contributor to haze in MANE-VU
Class I areas on either the 20% best or 20% worst visibility days.
Moreover, most of wood smoke is attributable to residential wood
combustion. Therefore, it is unlikely that fires for agricultural or
forestry management cause large impacts on visibility in any of the
Class I areas in the MANE-VU region. On rare occasions, smoke from
major fires degrades air quality and visibility in the MANE-VU area.
However, these fires are generally unwanted wildfires that are not
subject to SMPs. EPA proposes to approve Vermont's decision that an
Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Plan to address visibility
impairment is not required at this time.
f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures
    All emission limitations included as part of Vermont's Regional
Haze SIP are either currently federally enforceable or will become
federally enforceable if this action is finalized as proposed. EPA is
proposing to find that Vermont has adequately addressed the
enforceability of emission limitations and control measures.
g. The Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility
    MANE-VU used the best and final emission inventory to model
progress expected toward the goal of natural visibility conditions for
the first regional haze planning period. All of the MANE-VU Class I
areas are expected to achieve greater progress toward the natural
visibility goal than the uniform rate of progress, or the progress
expected by extrapolating a trend line from current visibility
conditions to natural visibility conditions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Projected visibility improvements for each MANE-VU Class I
area can be found in the NESCAUM document dated May 13, 2008, ``2018
Visibility Projections'' (www.nescaum.org/documents/2018-visibility-projections-final-05-13-08.pdf/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, EPA is proposing to find that Vermont has adequately
addressed the LTS regional haze requirements.

F. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    On May 10, 2006, the MANE-VU State Air Directors adopted the Inter-
RPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation Framework that documented the
consultation process within the context of regional phase planning, and
was intended to create greater certainty and understanding among RPOs.
MANE-VU States held ten consultation meetings and/or conference calls
from March 1, 2007 through March 21, 2008. In addition to MANE-VU
members attending these meetings and conference calls, participants
from the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO, Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal Land
Managers were also in attendance. In addition to the conference calls
and meeting, the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and comment
on each of the technical documents developed by MANE-VU.

    On December 22, 2008, Vermont submitted a draft Regional Haze SIP
to the relevant FLMs for review and comment pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2). The FLMs provided comments on the draft Regional Haze SIP
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). The comments received from the
FLMs were addressed and incorporated in Vermont's SIP revision. Most of
the comments were requests for additional detail as to various aspects
of the SIP. These comments and Vermont's response to comments can be
found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    On January 15, 2009, Vermont proposed its Regional Haze SIP for
public hearing and public comment. No public comments or requests for a
hearing were received. To address the requirement for continuing
consultation procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4),
Vermont commits in their SIP to ongoing consultation with the FLMs on
emission strategies, major new source permits, assessments or
rulemaking concerning sources identified as probable contributors to
visibility impairment, any changes to the monitoring strategy, work on
the periodic revisions to the SIP, and ongoing communications regarding
visibility impairment.
    EPA is proposing to find that Vermont has addressed the
requirements for consultation with States impacting Vermont's Class I
areas and with the Federal Land Managers.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional Haze Rule requires a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Areas within the State of Vermont. The monitoring
strategy relies upon participation in the IMPROVE network.
    The State of Vermont participates in the IMPROVE network, and will
evaluate the monitoring network periodically and make those changes
needed to be able to assess whether reasonable progress goals are being
achieved in Vermont's mandatory Class I Areas. In its SIP submittal,
Vermont is committing to continued support of the IMPROVE network for
the Lye Brook Wilderness area.
    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) requires States to establish additional
monitoring sites or equipment as needed to assess whether reasonable
progress goals are being achieved toward visibility improvement at
mandatory Class I areas. At this time, the current monitor is
sufficient to make this assessment.
    In its SIP submittal, Vermont commits to meet the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) to report to EPA visibility data for
Vermont's Class I Area annually.
    The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi)) requires the
inclusion of other monitoring elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures, necessary to assess and report
visibility. While the VT DEC has concluded that the current IMPROVE
network provides sufficient data to adequately measure and report
progress toward the goals set for the MANE-VU Class I sites, the State
has also found additional monitoring information useful to assess
visibility and fine particle pollution in the region in the past.
Examples of these data include results from the MANE-VU Regional
Aerosol Intensive Network (RAIN), which provides continuous, speciated
information on rural aerosol characteristics and visibility parameters;
the EPA Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET), which has
provided complementary rural fine particle speciation data at non-class
I sites; the EPA Speciation Trends Network (STN), which provides
speciated, urban fine particle data to help develop a comprehensive
picture of local and regional sources; state-operated rural and urban
speciation sites using IMPROVE or STN methods; and the Supersites
program, which has provided information through special studies that
generally expands our understanding of the processes that control fine
particle formation and transport in the region. Vermont plans to
continue to utilize these and other data--as they are available and
fiscal realities allow--to improve their understanding of visibility
impairment and to document progress toward the reasonable progress
goals under the Regional Haze Rule.

H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g), Vermont has
committed to submitting a report on reasonable progress (in the form of
a SIP revision) to the EPA every five years following the initial
submittal of its regional haze SIP. The reasonable progress report will
evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the MANE-VU Class I
areas, located in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey.
    Forty CFR 51.308(f) requires the VT DEC to submit periodic
revisions to its Regional Haze SIP by July 31, 2018, and every ten
years thereafter. VT DEC acknowledges and agrees to comply with this
schedule.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v), VT DEC will also make periodic
updates to the Vermont emissions inventory. VT DEC plans to complete
these updates to coincide with the progress reports. Actual emissions
will be compared to projected modeled emissions in the progress
reports.
    Lastly, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), VT DEC will submit a
determination of adequacy of its regional haze SIP revision whenever a
progress report is submitted. Vermont's regional haze SIP states that,
depending on the findings of its five-year review, Vermont will take
one or more of the following actions at that time, whichever actions
are appropriate or necessary:
     If Vermont determines that the existing SIP requires no
further substantive revision in order to achieve established goals for
visibility improvement and emissions reductions, VT DEC will provide to
the EPA Administrator a negative declaration that further revision of
the existing plan is not needed.
     If Vermont determines that its implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of
emissions from sources in one or more other State(s) which participated
in the regional planning process, Vermont will provide notification to
the EPA Administrator and to those other State(s). Vermont will also
collaborate with the other State(s) through the regional planning
process for the purpose of developing additional strategies to address
any such deficiencies in Vermont's plan.
     If Vermont determines that its implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of
emissions from sources in another country, Vermont will provide
notification, along with available information, to the EPA
Administrator.
     If Vermont determines that its implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of
emissions from sources within the State, Vermont will revise its SIP to
address the plan's deficiencies within one year from this
determination.

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing approval of Vermont's August 26, 2009 SIP revision
and supplemental submittal on January 3, 2012, as meeting the
applicable requirements of the Regional Haze Rule found in 40 CFR
51.308. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve Vermont's

revised Section 5-221 ``Prohibition of Potentially Polluting Materials
in Fuel,'' and incorporate this regulation into the Vermont SIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 13, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2012-4683 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P