[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64563-64565]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22639]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90118; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2020-053]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade
Shares of the 2x Long VIX Futures ETF, a Series of VS Trust, Under Rule
14.11(f)(4) (Trust Issued Receipts)

October 7, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On June 23, 2020, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``BZX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
list and trade shares (``Shares'') of the 2x Long VIX Futures ETF
(``Fund''), a Series of VS Trust

(``Trust''). On June 26, 2020, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
July 10, 2020.\3\ On August 13, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ This order institutes proceedings pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89234 (July 6,
2020), 85 FR 41644 (``Notice''). Comments on the proposed rule
change can be found at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2020-053/srcboebzx2020053.htm.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89545, 85 FR 51124
(August 19, 2020). The Commission designated October 8, 2020 as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of and Comment on the Proposal \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Additional information regarding the Fund, the Trust, and
the Shares can be found in the Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares pursuant to BZX
Rule 14.11(f)(4), which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued
Receipts on the Exchange.
    Volatility Shares LLC (``Sponsor''), a Delaware limited liability
company, is the sponsor of the Trust.\8\ The Sponsor is a commodity
pool operator.\9\ Tidal ETF Services LLC serves as the administrator,
and U.S. Bank National Association serves as custodian of the Fund and
its Shares. U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC is the sub-administrator
and transfer agent. Wilmington Trust Company, a Delaware trust company,
is the sole trustee of the Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Sponsor is not a broker-dealer or affiliated with a
broker-dealer. In the event that (a) the Sponsor becomes a broker-
dealer or newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new
sponsor is a broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-
dealer, it will implement and maintain a fire wall with respect to
its relevant personnel or such broker-dealer affiliate, as
applicable, regarding access to information concerning the
composition and/or changes to the portfolio, and will be subject to
procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material
non-public information regarding the portfolio.
    \9\ The Exchange represents that the Fund will file a
registration statement on Form S-1 under the Securities Act of 1933,
and that the Shares will not be listed on the Exchange until there
is an effective registration statement for the Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund will seek to provide a return that is 200% of the return
of its benchmark index for a single day. Therefore, if the Fund is
successful in meeting its objective, its value (before fees and
expenses) on a given day should gain approximately 200% of the return
of its benchmark index for a single day; conversely, its value (before
fees and expenses) should lose approximately 200% of the return of its
benchmark index for a single day when it declines.
    The benchmark index seeks to offer long exposure to market
volatility through publicly traded futures markets. The benchmark for
the Fund is the Long VIX Futures Index (``Index''), ticker symbol
LONGVOL,\10\ which measures the daily performance of a theoretical
portfolio of first- and second-month futures contracts on the Cboe
Volatility Index (``VIX'').\11\ The Index is comprised of, and the
value of the Fund will be based on, VIX futures contracts traded on the
Cboe Futures Exchange, Inc. (``VIX Futures Contracts'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Index is sponsored by Cboe Global Indexes (``Index
Sponsor''). The Index Sponsor is not a registered broker-dealer, but
is affiliated with a broker-dealer. The Index Sponsor has
implemented and will maintain a fire wall with respect to the
broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning
the composition and/or changes to the Index. In addition, the Index
Sponsor has implemented and will maintain procedures that are
designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-
public information regarding the Index.
    \11\ The VIX is an index designed to measure the implied
volatility of the S&P 500 over 30 days in the future. The VIX is
calculated based on the prices of certain put and call options on
the S&P 500. The VIX is reflective of the premium paid by investors
for certain options linked to the level of the S&P 500.
    \12\ VIX Futures Contracts are measures of the market's
expectation of the level of VIX at certain points in the future.
While the VIX represents a measure of the current expected
volatility of the S&P 500 over the next 30 days, the prices of VIX
Futures Contracts are based on the current expectation of what the
expected 30-day volatility will be on the contracts' expiration
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund would primarily invest in VIX Futures Contracts based on
components of the Index to pursue its investment objective. In the
event accountability rules, price limits, position limits, margin
limits or other exposure limits are reached with respect to VIX Futures
Contracts, the Sponsor might cause the Fund to obtain exposure to the
Index through over-the-counter swaps referencing the Index or
particular VIX Futures Contracts comprising the Index (``VIX Swap
Agreements'').\13\ The VIX Swap Agreements in which the Fund may invest
may be cleared or non-cleared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Fund may also invest in VIX Swap Agreements if the
market for a specific VIX Futures Contract experiences emergencies
(e.g., natural disaster, terrorist attack or an act of God) or
disruptions (e.g., a trading halt or a flash crash) or in situations
where the Sponsor deems it impractical or inadvisable to buy or sell
VIX Futures Contracts (such as during periods of market volatility
or illiquidity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to VIX Swap Agreements, if the Fund is unable to meet
its investment objective through investments in VIX Futures Contracts,
the Fund may also obtain exposure to the Index through listed VIX
options contracts traded on the Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``VIX Options
Contracts'').
    The Fund may also invest in Cash and Cash Equivalents that may
serve as collateral for the VIX Futures Contracts, VIX Swap Agreements,
and VIX Options Contracts (collectively, the ``VIX Derivative
Products'').\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Cash and Cash Equivalents'' means the instruments defined
in BZX Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund would seek to remain fully invested at all times in VIX
Derivative Products (as well as the Cash and Cash Equivalents that may
serve as collateral) that provide exposure to the Index consistent with
its investment objective without regard to market conditions, trends or
direction. The Sponsor would rely upon a pre-determined model to
reposition the Fund's investments in accordance with its investment
objective.

B. Comment on the Proposal

    A commenter opposes the proposed rule change and states that 2x
long volatility is not a profitable investment during bull markets. The
commenter points to the predominantly negative annual returns of
another exchange-traded product linked to long volatility, which the
commenter characterizes as the predecessor to the Fund. The commenter
also asserts that 2x long volatility does not make sense as a product,
as volatility is already volatile.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See letter dated July 10, 2020 from John Motson, available
at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2020-053/srcboebzx2020053-7409699-219192.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
CboeBZX-2020-053, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, and Grounds for
Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \16\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or
disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this
time in view of the legal and policy

issues raised by the proposal. Institution of proceedings does not
indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect
to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\17\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposal's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the public
interest.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations
thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to
approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral
presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to
make an oral presentation.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by November 3, 2020.
Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's
submission must file that rebuttal by November 17, 2020.
    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the
Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth
in the Notice, in addition to any other comments they may wish to
submit about the proposed rule change. In this regard, the Commission
seeks commenters' views regarding whether the Exchange's proposal to
list and trade the Shares, which seek to provide daily investment
results that correspond to 200% of the return of an index designed to
measure the daily performance of a theoretical portfolio of first- and
second-month VIX Futures Contracts, is adequately designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public
interest, and is consistent with the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market under the Act. The Commission also seeks commenters' views
regarding whether the Exchange has adequately described the potential
impact of sudden fluctuations in market volatility on the Index and on
the Fund's operation and performance for the Commission to make a
determination under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. In particular, the
Commission seeks comment regarding the Fund's operation during periods
with large percentage increases in volatility, and the potential market
impact of the Fund's daily rebalance.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-053 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-053. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-053 and should be submitted
by November 3, 2020. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by November
17, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22639 Filed 10-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


is the most effective control technology in use on recovery boilers and
that there are no new, more effective technologies subsequent to the
MACT standard that should be considered. Therefore, Maine determined
current controls represent BART for recovery boilers 1 and
2.
    (2) SO2 BART Review: Maine has found that SO2 emissions
from recovery boilers 1 and 2 are variable due to
several factors including black liquor properties (e.g., sulfidity,
sulfur to sodium ratio, heat value, and solids content), combustion
air, liquor firing patterns, furnace design features, and type of
startup fuel used. Although each recovery boiler has the ability to
utilize 2 fuel oil, 6 fuel oil, and used/waste oil
for startup, shutdown, and load stabilizing conditions, fuel oil firing
is not a typical operating scenario for the recovery boilers. Maine
identified and evaluated wet scrubbing, dry scrubbing, and semi-dry
scrubbing as potential control technologies in the reduction of
SO2 emissions from recovery boilers 1 and
2; however, none of these technologies were found to have been
applied to recovery boilers. Therefore, Maine determined that existing
combustion controls represent BART for the control of SO2
emissions from recovery boilers 1 and 2.
    (3) NOX BART Review: Kraft recovery boilers are a unique type of
combustion source that inherently produce low levels of NOX
emissions. Most of the NOX emissions produced by recovery
boilers can be attributed to fuel based NOX resulting from
the partial oxidation of the nitrogen contained in the black liquor.
Both recovery boilers 1 and 2 operate with a reducing
zone in the lower part of the boiler and an oxidizing zone in the
region of the liquor spray guns designed to provide secondary and
tertiary staged combustion zones to complete combustion of the black
liquor and minimize NOX emissions.
    Maine identified and evaluated SCR, LNB, SNCR, and combustion
control methods (including the addition of a fourth level or quaternary
air system and a flue gas recirculation system) as potential control
technologies in the reduction of NOX emissions from recovery
boilers 1 and 2. SCR has not been applied or
demonstrated successfully on any recovery boilers. It is unknown how
the unique characteristics of recovery boiler exhaust gas constituents
would react with a SCR catalyst, so there was no further evaluation of
this control technology. Maine's evaluation of LNB technology is that
it is not technically feasible to use this technology in the firing of
black liquor given its tar-like qualities and the method by which it is
injected into the boiler and that it would have minimal results in the
firing of fuel oils given the small amounts of fuel oils that are fired
in the recovery boilers. Maine's evaluation of SNCR control
technologies resulted in a finding that there have been no applications
of this technology on recovery boilers in the United States for a
variety of reasons, including safety concerns associated with the risk
of a smelt/water explosion should boiler tube walls corrode and leak
near urea injection points and risks associated with an ammonia
handling system for the SNCR. Operational concerns associated with SNCR
were found to include the potential formation of acidic sulfates that
could result in corrosion and a catastrophic boiler tube failure.
Recovery boilers 1 and 2 are currently designed and
operated using low excess air combined with three levels of staged
combustion to minimize NOX emissions. Additional combustion
control methods were evaluated by Maine, however none were found to be
viable control options for recovery boilers 1 and 2
due to the limited amount of space in the boilers to install a fourth
or quaternary air system and due to the technical challenges re-
circulating recovery boiler exhaust gases in a FGR system due to the
unique characteristics of the exhaust gases. Therefore, Maine concluded
that additional control of NOX emissions from recovery
boilers 1 and 2 are not technically feasible and the
existing combustion control methods represent BART for these units.
v. Smelt Tanks 1 and 2
    Smelt dissolving tank 1 is rated at 2.50 million pounds
per day of dry BLS and began operation in 1965. Smelt dissolving tank
2 is rated at 3.44 million pounds per day of dry BLS and began
operation in 1975. Inorganic materials from the recovery boiler floors
drain into smelt dissolving tanks 1 and 2 as molten
smelt. In the smelt dissolving tanks, the smelt is mixed with weak wash
to form green liquor which is pumped to the causticizing area.
SO2 and PM10 emissions from smelt dissolving tank
1 are controlled with a dual-nozzle wet cyclonic scrubber
which utilizes an alkaline scrubbing solution and was installed in
1983. SO2 and PM10 emissions from smelt
dissolving tank 2 are controlled with a triple-nozzle wet
cyclonic scrubber which utilizes an alkaline scrubbing solution and was
installed in 1976.
    (1) PM BART Review: PM emissions from smelt dissolving tanks
1 and 2 are currently controlled by existing wet
cyclonic scrubbers. Smelt dissolving tanks 1 and 2
are subject to MACT standards under 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MM. After
review of the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, Maine determined that the
current control configuration is the most current control technology in
use on smelt dissolving tanks and represent BART for smelt dissolving
tanks 1 and 2.
    (2) SO2 BART Review: Maine has found that SO2 emissions
from smelt dissolving tanks 1 and 2 are dependent on
how much sulfur carries over from the respective recovery boilers with
the smelt. Controlled smelt-water explosions in the smelt dissolving
tanks can create SO2 as a result of the oxidation of the
sulfur in the smelt. SO2 emissions from both smelt
dissolving tanks combined are very low at approximately 5 tons per
year. Maine determined that BART for SO2 emissions from
smelt dissolving tanks 1 and 2 is no additional
control based on the following:
    (1) SO2 emissions from the smelt dissolving tanks during
the BART baseline period were and are expected to continue to be
extremely low (~5 TPY, combined); (2) the smelt dissolving tanks and
associated scrubbers are designed and operated to minimize
SO2 emissions; (3) SO2 emissions from the smelt
dissolving tanks have a minimal impact on visibility (< 0.1 deciviews);
and (4) additional control of SO2 emissions from the smelt
dissolving tanks would have a minimal impact on overall visibility.
    (3) NOX BART Review: Smelt Tanks 1 and 2 do not
emit NOX.
vi. Lime Kilns A and B
    The ``A'' and ``B'' lime kilns process lime mud (calcium carbonate)
from the causticizing area to regenerate calcium oxide. Inside the lime
kilns, the lime mud is dried and heated to a high temperature where the
lime mud is converted to lime. ``A'' and ``B'' lime kilns are each
rated at an operating rate of 248 tons of calcium oxide per day and a
heat input of 72 MMBtu/hr and began operation in 1965 and 1975,
respectively. The lime kilns are licensed to fire 6 fuel oil,
2 fuel oil, propane, and used/waste oil. The facility's
license currently limits the sulfur content of the fuel oil to no more
than 1.8%, by weight. The ``A'' and ``B'' lime kilns also serve as an
incineration device (control device) for select sources

of low volume high concentration (LVHC) non-condensable gases (NCG)
from pulping operations at the mill. Particulate matter emissions are
controlled from the ``A'' and ``B'' lime kilns using a fixed throat
venturi scrubber.
    (1) PM BART Review: PM10 emissions from the ``A'' and
``B'' lime kilns consist primarily of dust entrained from the
combustion section of the kilns. This dust consists of sodium salts,
calcium carbonate, and calcium oxide. PM10 emissions are
currently controlled by existing venturi scrubbers. These units are
also subject to MACT Standards under section 112 of the CAA, and 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart MM. Maine reviewed the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
and concluded that there are two control technologies that represent
the most stringent PM control (ESPs and venturi scrubbers). Both ESPs
and venturi scrubbers have been used to control PM emissions from lime
kilns and both are capable of a high level of control. Maine determined
that use of the existing venturi scrubbers to control PM10
emissions from the ``A'' and ``B'' represents BART for the following
reasons: (1) The existing venturi scrubbers maintain compliance with
the MACT emission limits; (2) the replacement of the existing venturi
scrubbers with dry ESPs could increase SO2 emissions from
the lime kilns when compared to use of the venturi scrubbers; (3) the
replacement of the existing venturi scrubbers with wet ESPs would
result in high capital costs ($1.5 million per kiln); and (4)visibility
impacts from the lime kilns are minimal (0.03-0.04 dv) and installation
of additional control would result in inconsequential improvement in
visibility.
    (2) SO2 BART Review: Maine has found that a significant portion of
the SO2 formed during the combustion process in the lime
kilns is removed as the regenerated quicklime in the kilns functions as
a scrubbing agent. In addition, the non-condensable gas (NCG)
collection system is equipped with a scrubber that uses white liquor
(sodium hydroxide or NaOH) and thus the sulfur loading from the NCGs is
minimized. SO2 emissions from both lime kilns combined are
very low at less than 4 tons per year primarily due to the alkalinity
of the lime. Maine determined that BART for SO2 emissions
from the ``A'' and ``B'' lime kilns is no additional control based on
the following: (1) SO2 emissions from the lime kilns during
the BART baseline period were and are expected to continue to be
extremely low (<4 TPY, combined); (2) there are no control technologies
available for lime kilns that are more cost effective than the inherent
scrubbing that occurs for SO2 due to the alkalinity of the
lime in the process; (3) SO2 emissions from the smelt
dissolving tanks have a minimal impact on visibility (<0.1 deciviews);
and (4) additional control of SO2 emissions from the lime
kilns would have a minimal impact on overall visibility.
    (3) NOX BART Review: Maine identified and evaluated SCR, LNB, and
SNCR as potential NOX control technologies. Maine's
evaluation of SCR and SNCR as potential NOX control
technologies revealed that they have not been installed on any lime
kilns in the pulp and paper industry, and were also found to be
technically infeasible. Maine's research with respect to lime kilns and
LNB technology revealed that the technology is actually a combination
of passive combustion control measures used to minimize NOX
formation primarily from thermal NOX and to a lesser extent
fuel NOX. These combustion control measures include careful
design of the fuel feed system in order to ensure proper mixing of the
fuel with air and burner ``tuning'' or optimization which impacts fuel
burning efficiency and overall flame length. Verso Androscoggin already
incorporates burner ``tuning'' in the operation and maintenance of the
``A'' and ``B'' lime kilns to optimize the relationship between
NOX emissions and operating efficiency. Maine determined
that the current use of LNB represents BART for control of
NOX emissions from ``A'' and ``B'' lime kilns and that no
additional level of control is technically feasible. Maine also notes
in the BART analysis that existing NOX emissions from the
``A'' and ``B'' lime kilns have a minimal impact on visibility (< 0.1
deciviews) and that additional control of NOX emissions
would have a minimal impact on the overall improvement to visibility.
vii. Flash Dryer
    The flash dryer is used to dry pulp for resale or for storage and
future use on one of Verso Androscoggin's paper machines. The flash
dryer has a rated heat input capacity of 84 MMBtu/hr and began
operation in 1964. The flash dryer is licensed to fire 2 fuel
oil, which contains a maximum sulfur content of 0.5%. Particulate
matter emissions are controlled using a wet shower system and
SO2 emissions are limited through the firing of 2
fuel oil.
    (1) PM BART Review: Particulate matter emissions from the flash
dryer are currently controlled by the use of a wet shower system. Maine
concluded that the application of add-on controls and the use of
cleaner fuels are not practical considerations for controlling PM
emissions from the flash dryers and that with potential visibility
impacts from the flash dryer being extremely low, any emission
reductions would have an inconsequential impact on visibility
improvement (less than 0.1 dv). Therefore, Maine determined that
current controls represent BART for the flash dryer.
    (2) SO2 BART Review: The flash dryer is limited by license
conditions to firing 2 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content
of 0.5%, by weight and so has relatively low SO2 emissions. Although
Verso Androscoggin could replace the use of 2 fuel oil with
lower sulfur containing fuels such as low sulfur (0.05%) diesel fuel or
natural gas, the flash dryer is predicted to have peak visibility
impacts of 0.1 deciviews or less. Therefore, Maine determined that
current controls represent BART.
    (3) NOX BART Review: The flash dryer is not equipped
with any NOX control equipment. NOX emissions
from the flash dryer are primarily generated from the nitrogen
component in the fuel oil. Verso Androscoggin currently uses good
maintenance practices to minimize NOX emissions from the
flash dryer. Maine's investigation of conventional NOX
combustion controls (e.g., LNB, OFA, and FGR) lead to a finding that
they are either unavailable for installation on the flash dryer or are
not feasible for a combustion source as small as the flash dryer.
Therefore, Maine determined that controls are sufficient for BART.
viii. EPA Assessment
    EPA finds that Maine's analyses and conclusions for the BART
emission units located at the Verso Androscoggin facility are
reasonable. EPA guidance gives the States wide latitude in the
application of the five factors. EPA believes that Maine's approach is
reasonable for determining that current controls are sufficient for
recovery boilers 1 and 2, WFI, smelt tanks 1
and 2, lime kilns A and B, the flash dryer. EPA finds, with
respect to the power boilers 1 and 2, that Maine's
determination that natural gas, 2 oil, or wet scrubbing
technology are not economically justifiable, is reasonable.\15\

EPA also finds that Maine's determination that 6 oil with 0.7%
sulfur content and current NOX controls represent BART is
reasonable.\16\ EPA has reviewed the Maine analyses and concluded they
were conducted in a manner consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Maine's SIP revision submittal is unclear as to whether
Maine judged the cost effectiveness of these technologies based on
the longer, 2002-2008, timeframe or the shorter, 2008-2009,
timeframe. States have broad discretion in setting BART, and EPA
finds that Maine could have reasonably concluded that even the lower
cost of these technologies under the 2002-2008 timeframe was not
economically justifiable given the incremental visibility benefits
associated with the more stringent technology.
    \16\ The MANE-VU recommended limit for these types of units is
0.5% sulfur content. However, under a state provision, 38 M.R.S.A.
Sec.  603-A, sub-Sec.  8--that was not submitted as part of the SIP
revision and is not currently being considered by EPA--Maine DEP is
limited to either requiring 1% sulfur content or a 50% reduction.
Because States have broad discretion in setting BART, EPA finds that
requiring 0.7% sulfur content is reasonable; however it should be
noted that under 38 M.R.S.A. Sec.  603-A, sub-Sec.  2(A), which EPA
is proposing to approve today, these units will be required to use
0.5% sulfur content fuel by January 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Red Shield Environmental, LLC
i. Background
    Red Shield operates a pulp mill in Old Town, Maine. Pulp production
at the facility begins with wood chips entering the facility, where
they are conveyed to, and ``cooked'' in an impregnation vessel followed
by a digester. In the digester, white liquor is used to dissolve the
lignin from around the wood fibers. The pulp from the digester is then
washed in the brownstock washer system to remove residual spent cooking
liquor. After bleaching the pulp to the desired brightness, it is the
dried. There are two BART eligible units at the facility; recovery
boiler 4, and the lime kiln. These units are similar to those
already discussed above at SD Warren and Verso Androscoggin, and Maine
similarly concluded that current controls represent BART at Red Shield
Environmental.
ii. Recovery Boiler 4
    Recovery boiler 4, manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox, was
originally installed in 1971. However, in June of 1987, a smelt bed
explosion damaged the boiler. Recovery boiler 4 was repaired
and returned to operation by December of 1987. Recovery boiler
4 has the capability of firing black liquor, either alone or
in combination with 6 fuel oil, and is limited to firing 2.57
MMlbs of black liquor solids per day. The total heat input capacity of
firing 6 fuel alone in the boiler is 375 MMBtu/hr (2500 gal/
hr). An ESP controls particulate matter from the unit.
    (1) PM BART Review: Recovery boiler 4 is equipped with an
ESP for particulate matter, and a limit of 0.028 grains per dry
standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) \17\ has been established pursuant to
MACT, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MM. Therefore, Maine determined current
controls were determined to represent BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The narrative that accompanies Maine's SIP revision
submittal lists this limit as 0.044 gr/dscf. However, the associated
Table 10-9 BART Determination Summary for Red Shield Environmental,
LLC of the SIP submittal and the license amendment issued by Maine
DEP that EPA is proposing to approve into Maine's SIP lists the
limit as 0.028 gr/dscf. Therefore this limit is the enforceable
limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) SO2 BART Review: SO2 emissions from the
recovery boiler 4 are limited through the use of low sulfur
(0.5% fuel sulfur content limit) as established by air emission license
amendment A-180-71-Z-A and required by the facility's Part 70 air
emission license (A-180-70-A-I). Therefore, Maine determined the
current controls represent BART.
    (3) NOX BART Review: Recovery boiler 4 is
subject to Maine's federally enforceable Chapter 138--Reasonably
Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Nitrogen Oxides
(69 FR 66748) which contains the applicable NOX ppm limit
(150 ppm). The unit is also subject to a best practical treatment (BPT)
NOX limit of 154.4 pounds per hour (lb/hr) when firing black
liquor, and a 188.2 lb/hr limit when firing oil. The maximum visibility
impact from this source on a Class I area is minimal, 0.2631 dv, 0.2070
dv impact due to NOX. Therefore, Maine determined the
current controls represent BART.
iii. Lime Kiln
    The lime kiln, lime mud clarifier, storage tanks, precoat filter,
and scrubber are all part of the lime kiln system. Lime mud
(CaCO3) from the recausticizing slaker system is processed
back into lime (CaO) through the lime kiln system. The lime kiln was
installed in 1974 and is controlled with a venturi scrubber system. The
lime kiln burner has a rating of 64 MMBtu/hr and fires primarily
6 fuel oil with a 2% sulfur content. Propane is used only for
the pilot flame. Low volume high concentration (LVHC) gases are also
fired in the lime kiln.
    (1) PM BART Review: The lime kiln is equipped with a venturi
scrubber system for particulate matter, and is subject to 40 CFR Part
63, Subpart MM, which contains an applicable PM emission limit of 0.064
gr/dscf. However, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MM also allows Red Shield to
propose an alternative PM limit (0.13 gr/dscf), which takes into
account facility emissions from the 4 Recovery Boiler and
4 Smelt Tank. Maine also established an applicable PM emission
limit of 32.9 lb/hr under Maine's BPT program. Therefore, Maine
determined current controls represent BART.
    (2) SO2 BART Review: The lime kiln is subject to Maine's
BPT with an applicable limit of 7.1 lb/hr. Therefore, Maine determined
that current controls represent BART.
    (3) NOX BART Review: The lime kiln is subject to Maine's
Chapter 138 which contains the applicable NOX ppm limit (170
ppm on a dry basis). The applicable NOX lb/hr emission limit
is 36.0 lb/hr. The maximum visibility impact from this source on a
Class I area is minimal, 0.1338 dv, 0.085 dv impact due to
NOX. Therefore, Maine determined that current controls
represent BART.
iv. EPA Assessment
    Under EPA Guidance, States have wide discretion as to how they
assess the BART five factors. Visibility modeling indicates the maximum
visibility impairment from the 4 recovery boiler and the lime
kiln is 0.26 dv and 0.13 dv, respectively. The sources at Red Shield
Environmental are similar to units at Verso Androscoggin and several
other facilities. Maine analyzed the potential for add on controls for
recovery boilers and lime kilns for Verso Androscoggin, finding
additional controls for those units to be technologically infeasible.
Based on that analysis, EPA finds that Maine's conclusion that the
current controls are sufficient for BART is reasonable. EPA has
reviewed the Maine analyses and concluded they were conducted in a
manner consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines.
6. Enforceability of BART
    As noted above, some of the BART units are subject to MACT
standards that are federally enforceable. In addition, as part of the
Maine's December 6, 2010 Regional Haze SIP submittal, Maine DEP
included source specific permits which detail emission limits, and
record keeping and reporting requirements associated with the
installation of the identified BART controls. EPA is proposing to
approve the submitted license conditions as part of this rulemaking
action. If finalized, as proposed, these conditions will become
federally enforceable.

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 Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey, the
nearby Class I area States. Maine'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. Maine participated in
the MANE-VU regional strategy development process. As a participant,
Maine 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 MANE-VU
Contribution report; (b) Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional
Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas, available at www.marama.org/visibility/RPG/FinalReport/RPGFinalReport_070907.pdf pdf; 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 Maine, in coordination with MANE-VU,
identifying the emissions units within Maine that are currently likely
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
(including BART), and comparing projected visibility improvement with
the uniform rate of progress for the nearby Class I area.
    Maine'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, Vermont, and
New Jersey for their Class I areas.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU with assistance from
Maine. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002
emissions, and assuming emissions growth due to projected increases in
economic activity as well as applying reductions expected from federal
and state regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the
visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, PM10,
PM2.5, and SO2. The BART guidelines direct States
to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3 impair
visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in Section
IV.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) off-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. Off-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 Maine anticipate will reduce emissions between the
baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these control
programs were projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement
by 2018 at all of the MANE-VU Class I areas. To assess emissions
reductions from ongoing air pollution control programs, BART, and
reasonable progress measures, MANE-VU developed emissions projections
for 2018 called ``Best and Final.'' The emissions inventory provided by
the Maine DEP for the ``Best and Final'' 2018 projections is based on
expected control requirements.
    Maine relied on emission reductions from the following ongoing and
expected air pollution control programs as part of the state's long
term strategy. Maine's EGU Regulation (Chapter 145 NOX
Control Program) limits the NOX emission rate to 0.22 lb
NOX/MMBtu for fossil fuel-fired units greater than 25 MW
built before 1995 with a heat input capacity between 250 and 750 MMBtu/
hr, and also limits the NOX emission rate to 0.17 lb
NOX/MMBtu for fossil fuel-fired units greater than 25 MW
built before 1995 with a heat input capacity greater than 750 MMBtu/hr.
    Non-EGU point source controls in Maine include: 2-year, 4-year, 7-
year, and 10-year MACT Standards; Combustion Turbine and Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) MACT; Industrial Boiler/Process
Heater MACT.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The inventory was prepared before the MACT for industrial
Boilers and Process Heaters was vacated. Control efficiency was
assumed to be 4 percent for SO2 and 40 percent for PM.
The overall effects of including these reductions in the inventory
are estimated to be minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals mandated the
vacatur and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\19\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NRDC v. EPA, 489F.3d 1250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maine's modeling included emission reductions from the vacated
Industrial Boiler MACT rule. Maine did not redo its modeling analysis
when the rule was re-issued. However, the expected reductions in
SO2 and PM resulting from both the vacated and revised MACT
rule are a relatively small component of the Maine inventory. The
expected emission reductions from the revised MACT rule are comparable
to the modeled reductions from the vacated MACT rule. 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.
    Controls on area sources expected in 2018 include the following
Maine state regulations: architectural and industrial maintenance
coatings (06-096 CMR Chapter 151) and solvent cleaning (06-096 CMR
Chapter 130); mobile equipment repair and refinishing (06-096 CMR
Chapter 153); and VOC control measures for portable fuel containers
(06-096 CMR Chapter 155) and consumer products (06-096 CMR Chapter
152). All of these rules have been incorporated into the Maine SIP.

See www.epa.gov/region1/topics/air/sips/sips_me.html.
    Controls on mobile sources expected in 2018 include: Stage I vapor
recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facility in the state and Stage
II vapor recovery at any gasoline dispensing facility in York,
Cumberland, and Sagadahoc counties (06-096 CMR Chapter 118); \20\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Maine recently revised Chapter 118 to no longer require
Stage II vapor recovery controls as of January 1, 2012. The previous
version of the rule, however, is still currently included in the
Maine SIP. Maine DEP is currently developing a SIP submittal for the
revised rule which would ensure that Clean Air Act antibacksliding
requirements are met. The SIP submittal must provide for equivalent
or greater reductions than under the currently approved Stage II
program. 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, October 23, 1998); Control of Emissions
from Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines (67
FR 68241, November 8, 2002); and Control of Emissions of Air Pollution
from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuels (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
    Tables 4 and 5 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018
estimated emissions inventories for Maine. The 2018 estimated emissions
include emissions growth as well as emission reductions due to ongoing
emission control strategies and reasonable progress goals.

                               Table 7--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for Maine
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   NH3        NOX        PM10      PM2.5       SO2        VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile........................................      1,468     54,687      1,239        934      1,804     23,037
Nonroad.......................................         11      9,820      1,437      1,329        917     31,144
EGU Point.....................................        145      7,831      1,169        888      9,299        842
Non-EGU Point.................................        700     12,108      6,120      4,899     14,412      4,477
Area..........................................      8,747      7,360    168,953     32,774     13,149    100,621
Biogenics.....................................  .........      2,018  .........  .........  .........    600,205
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals....................................     11,071     93,824    178,919     40,825     39,581    760,327
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Table 8--2018 Emission Inventory Summary for Maine
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   NH3        NOX        PM10      PM2.5       SO2        VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile........................................      1,715     12,828        272        266        894     10,414
Nonroad.......................................         15      6,543      1,086        978         82     21,988
EGU Point.....................................        139      1,827        296        279       \21\         53
                                                                                6,806
Non-EGU Point.................................        859     14,137      7,477      5,922     13,082      5,708
Area..........................................     12,312      7,036     57,411     18,877      1,127     90,866
Biogenics.....................................  .........      2,018  .........  .........  .........    600,205
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals....................................     15,041     44,390       \22\     26,321     21,991    729,235
                                                                         66,542
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The 2018 Final Modeling Inventory SO2 emissions
estimates for the EGU sector includes adjustments to the EGU sector,
including: (1) Assessing the implementation of BART at eight BART-
eligible units, including Maine's Wyman Station; (2) implementation
of the MANE-VU EGU strategy; (3) increases in SO2
emissions to estimate the effect of emissions trading under the CAIR
program; and (4) emissions increases in the MANE-VU region to
reflect state's best estimates that some sources predicted by the
IPM model to be closed would continue to operates, and information
about where and when emission controls would be installed. The net
result of these adjustments was an increase in SO2
emissions from EGUs in Maine.
    \22\ An adjustment factor was applied during the processing of
emissions data to restate fugitive particulate matter emissions.
Grid models have been found to overestimate fugitive dust impacts
when compared with ambient samples; therefore, an adjustment is
typically applied to account for the removal of particles by
vegetation and other terrain features. The summary emissions for
PM10 in Table 8 reflect this adjustment. A comparable
adjustment was not made to the PM10 value listed in Table
7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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-p.m.-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 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), the Maine DEP 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 finds 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 Maine LTS and regional haze SIP.
3. Meeting the MANE-VU ``Ask''
    Maine 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
    The Maine BART determinations are discussed in section IV.D. In the
modeling to demonstrate the sufficiency of the LTS to achieve the RPGs,
Maine assumed a 1,442 ton per year reduction in SO2 from
SAPPI Somerset Power Boiler 1 due to BART control. Maine later
determined that this unit was not BART eligible due to federally
enforceable operation restrictions. However, Maine demonstrated that
the SO2 emissions reductions assumed in the modeling were
reasonable since an additional, federally enforceable Title V license
condition limits the amount of time boiler 1 can be used to
incinerate total reduced sulfur gases. This limit compensates for the
initial assumption of 1,442 ton per year reduction in SO2.
b. Ninety Percent Reduction in SO2 Emissions From Each of
the Electric Generating Unit (EGU) Stacks Identified by MANE-VU
Comprising a Total of 167 Stacks
    Maine has one EGU stack identified by MANE-VU as a top contributor
to visibility impairment in any of the MANE-VU Class I areas, FPL
Energy Wyman Station boiler 4.
    Boiler 4 is a peaking unit, and operated at an average
annual capacity factor of less than 10 percent between 2002 and 2009,
with annual SO2 emissions of 1,170 tons in 2002.
    Although FGD through the use of a wet, semi-dry or dry scrubber is
technically feasible, this technology is cost prohibitive due to the
low-capacity factor of this unit. In lieu of requiring add-on controls,
Maine will be utilizing its low-sulfur fuels program meet the ``Ask''
at this unit. The Maine Low Sulfur Fuel Program requires the use of
low-sulfur fuel containing no more than 0.5% sulfur beginning January
1, 2018, providing an 84 percent reduction in SO2 emissions
from its baseline emissions based on the use of 3.0% sulfur fuel.
c. Maine 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 by no later than 2018; in 6 residual
oil to 0.5% sulfur by weight by no later than 2018; and a further
reduction in the sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2018.
    The Maine Low Sulfur Oil Program, as established in statute at 38
M.R.S.A. Sec.  603-A, sub-Sec.  2, instituted the following
restrictions on fuel sulfur content for residual (4,
5, and 6) and distillate oil:
    (1) Beginning January 1, 2018; a person may not use residual oil
with a sulfur content greater than 0.5% by weight;
    (2) Beginning January 1, 2016, a person may not use distillate oil
with a sulfur content greater than 0.005% by weight; and

    (3) Beginning January 1, 2018, a person may not use distillate oil
with a sulfur content greater than 0.0015% by weight.
    In addition to the low sulfur requirements for distillate and
residual oil, the program contains two elements not included in the
MANE-VU Low Sulfur Oil Strategy. These elements are an exemption from
the low sulfur content limits for sources using distillate fuel for
manufacturing purposes and an equivalent alternative sulfur reduction
program. Neither element is included in Maine's implementation plan
submittal or approved by EPA.
    Maine DEP does not believe that the low sulfur content limit
exemption for manufacturing purposes will have a significant impact on
the emission reductions afforded by this strategy for 2018 and beyond.
While the exemption allows the continued use of high-sulfur \23\
distillate oil at several manufacturing facilities, there are
structural impediments to the actual use of these fuels. First, since
there is only a limited potential market for high-sulfur distillate
\24\ the Maine DEP believes that this fuel will not be readily
available, and will likely be more expensive than the more widely used
15 ppm distillate. Distributors and wholesalers of distillate fuels
have noted that supplying high-sulfur distillate to a limited market
introduces additional costs to their industry in the form of segregated
storage and transportation/delivery systems, since even incidental
contamination (co-mingling) can lead to non-compliance issues.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Containing 2,000-5,000 ppm sulfur.
    \24\ All other users of distillate (diesel) fuel in Maine will
be subject to the 15 ppm sulfur limits (including general use and
space heating at manufacturing facilities).
    \25\ For example, only 7 gallons of a 5,000 ppm sulfur fuel
added to 7,500 gallons of ULSD would raise the sulfur content by 5.0
ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing the potential for incidental contamination of ULSD,
segregated storage and transportation/delivery systems are probably the
only mechanisms that can assure compliance with federal and state ULSD
requirements for the petroleum marketing industry. Given the low
demand, and additional storage, transportation and delivery costs,
Maine DEP does not believe that high sulfur distillate fuel will be
widely used by the manufacturing sector in 2018 and later.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As noted above, Maine believes that future (2018) use of
distillate fuel by the manufacturing sector will be limited due to
cost and compliance concerns. Nevertheless, projected 2018
SO2 emissions for Maine have been adjusted to address
this exemption, and its impact on non-EGU point source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Continued Evaluation of Other Control Measures To Reduce
SO2 and NOX Emissions
    While Maine DEP continues to evaluate other control measures to
reduce SO2 and NOX emission, Maine has adopted a
program to reduce wood smoke emissions from outdoor wood and pellet
boilers.
    Maine's Control of Emissions From Outdoor Wood Boilers Rule (06-096
CMR 150) includes EPA's recommended Phase I particulate emission limit
of 0.60 lbs/MMBtu/hr heat input as the standard for new outdoor wood-
fired hydronic heaters (OWHH), also known as outdoor wood boilers, sold
in Maine beginning April 1, 2008. Beginning April 1, 2010 new OWHH sold
in Maine were required to meet a more stringent particulate emission
standard of 0.32 lbs/MMBtu heat output (Phase II). The rule also
establishes setback, stack height, particulate emission limits, and
fuel requirements for outdoor wood boilers. Chapter 150 was
subsequently amended to control the sale, installation, use, and siting
of outdoor wood boilers that combust biomass pellets as fuel. Maine has
submitted this rule to EPA for incorporation as part of the Regional
Haze SIP.
    Maine did not include emission reductions which result from the
promulgation of the outdoor wood boilers rule in the visibility
modeling to ensure reasonable progress. However, Maine is including
this program in its regional Haze SIP as a SIP enhancement, or
strengthening measure. EPA finds that Maine has sufficiently addressed
the MANE-VU ``Ask'' by means of Maine's Low Sulfur Fuel oil strategy,
control on Wyman Unit 4, the submitted BART determinations,
and the outdoor wood boiler control strategy.
4. Additional Considerations for the LTS
    40 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 Maine has been identified as subject to RAVI. An
exhaustive list of Maine's ongoing air pollution control programs is
included in section IV.E.1.
b. Construction Activities
    The Regional Haze Rule requires Maine 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.''\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ ``Technical Support Document on Measures to Mitigate the
Visibility Impacts of Construction Activities in the MANE-VU Region,
Draft, October 20, 2006'' 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. At the state level, Maine
currently regulates emissions of fugitive dust through Maine's Chapter
101, Visible Emissions rules, which establishes opacity limits for
emissions from several categories of air contaminant sources, including
fugitive emissions from construction activities. This rule has been
incorporated into the Maine SIP. See www.epa.gov/region1/topics/air/sips/me/2003_ME_ch101.pdf.
    MANE-VU's Contribution Assessment 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 ratio 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, Maine 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 in
2012. EPA has determined that Maine 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 IV.E.1, Maine has adopted a low sulfur fuel oil strategy
consistent with the MANE-VU ``Ask.'' The compliance date for Phase I
will be in 2016 and the compliance date for Phase II will be in 2018.
d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedule
    Section 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) of the Regional Haze Rule
requires Maine to consider source retirement and replacement schedules
in developing the long term strategy. Source retirement and replacement
were considered in developing the 2018 emissions. EPA has determined
that Maine 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.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ``Technical Support Document on Agricultural and Smoke
Management in the MANE-VU Region, September 1, 2006'' has been
included as part of the docket to this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maine 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 Maine, those emissions from
those source categories totaled 7.8 tons of PM10, 6.7 tons
of PM2.5 and 0.5 tons of SO2 in 2002, which
constitute 0.08%, 0.2% and 0.006% of the total inventory for these
pollutants, respectively.
    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 the 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. Therefore, an SMP is not required for Maine. EPA
agrees that it is not necessary for Maine to have an Agricultural and
Forestry Smoke Management Plan to address visibility impairment at this
time.
f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures
    All emission limitations included as part of Maine's Regional Haze
SIP are either currently federally enforceable or will become federally
enforceable if this action is finalized as proposed.
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.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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 Maine 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 May 27, 2010, Maine 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 Maine's SIP revision. Most of the
comments were requests for additional detail as to various aspects of
the SIP. These comments and Maine's response to comments can be found
in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    On August 12, 2010, Maine published a notice of agency rulemaking--
proposal. This initiated a 30-day comment period and the opportunity to
request a public hearing. Maine DEP received comments from EPA, the
United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, the United
States Department of Agriculture, and Florida Power and Light Company.
Maine's response to comments is included as an attachment to the SIP
submittal.
    To address the requirement for continuing consultation procedures
with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Maine commits in their SIP to
ongoing consultation with the FLMs on Regional Haze issues throughout
the implementation.
    EPA is proposing to find that Maine has addressed the requirements
for consultation with States impacting Maine'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 Maine. The monitoring strategy relies upon participation
in the IMPROVE network.
    The State of Maine 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 each of Maine's mandatory Class I Areas. In its SIP
submittal, Maine is committing to continued support of the IMPROVE
network at Acadia National Park and Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge.
    40 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 monitors are
sufficient to make this assessment.
    In its SIP submittal, Maine commits to meet the requirements under
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) to report to EPA visibility data for each of
Maine's Class I Areas 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 Maine DEP has concluded that the current IMPROVE
network provides sufficient data to adequately measure and report
progress toward the goals set for MANE-VU Class I sites to which the
State contributes, 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. Maine 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
our 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), Maine 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.
    Section 40 CFR 51.308(f) requires the Maine DEP to submit periodic
revisions to its Regional Haze SIP by July 31, 2018, and every ten
years thereafter. Maine DEP acknowledges and agrees to comply with this
schedule.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v), Maine DEP will also make
periodic updates to the Maine emissions inventory. Maine DEP 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), Maine DEP will submit a
determination of adequacy of its regional haze SIP revision whenever a
progress report is submitted. Maine's regional haze SIP states that,
depending on the findings of its five-year review, Maine will take one
or more of the following actions at that time, whichever actions are
appropriate or necessary:
     If Maine determines that the existing State Implementation
Plan requires no further substantive revision in order to achieve
established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions,
Maine DEP will provide to the EPA Administrator a negative declaration
that further revision of the existing plan is not needed.
     If Maine 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, Maine will provide notification to the EPA
Administrator and to those other state(s). Maine 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 Maine's plan.
     If Maine determines that its implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of emissions
from sources in another country, Maine will provide notification, along
with available information, to the EPA Administrator.
     If Maine determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of emissions
from sources within the state, Maine will revise its implementation
plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year from this
determination.

V. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve of Maine's December 9, 2010 SIP
revision as meeting the applicable implementing regulations found in 40
CFR 51.308. EPA is also proposing to approve the following license
conditions and incorporate them into the SIP: Conditions (16) A, B, G,
and H of license amendment A-406-77-3-M for Katahdin Paper Company
issued on July 8, 2009; license amendment A-214-77-9-M for Rumford
Paper Company issued on January 8, 2010; license amendment A-22-77-5-M
for Verso Bucksport, LLC issued November 2, 2010; license amendment A-
214-77-2-M for Woodland Pulp, LLC (formerly Domtar) issued November 2,
2010; license amendment A-388-77-2-M for FPL Energy Wyman, LLC & Wyman
IV, LLC issued November 2, 2010; license amendment A-19-77-5-M for S.
D. Warren Company issued November 2, 2010; license amendment A-203-77-
11-M for Verso Androscoggin LLC issued November 2, 2010; and license
amendment A-180-77-1-A for Red Shield Environmental LLC issued November
29, 2007.
    EPA is proposing to approve Maine's low sulfur fuel oil
legislation, 38 MRSA Sec.  603-A, sub-Sec.  2(A), and to incorporate
this legislation into the Maine SIP. Furthermore, EPA is also proposing
to approve the following Maine state regulation and incorporate it into
the SIP: Maine Chapter 150, Control of Emissions from Outdoor Wood
Boilers.

VI. 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: November 15, 2011.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2011-30650 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72512-72513]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23186]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4720-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Vermont; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4720-DR), dated July 14, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 8, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Vermont is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of July 14, 2023.

    Essex County for debris removal [Category A] and permanent work
[Categories C-G] (already designated for emergency protective
measures [Category B], including direct federal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially

Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23186 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P