30598 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 

or less in diameter, often referred to as ‘‘fine’’ 

particles. 

IV. Notice of Hearing Under 21 CFR 

Part 15 

The Commissioner is announcing that 

the public hearing will be held in 

accordance with 21 CFR part 15. The 

hearing will be conducted by a 

presiding officer, who will be 

accompanied by FDA senior 

management from the Office of the 

Commissioner and the relevant Centers/ 

Offices. Under § 15.30(f), the hearing is 

informal and the rules of evidence do 

not apply. No participant may interrupt 

the presentation of another participant. 

Only the presiding officer and panel 

members can pose questions; they can 

question any person during or after each 

presentation. Public hearings under part 

15 are subject to FDA’s policy and 

procedures for electronic media 

coverage of FDA’s public administrative 

proceedings (21 CFR part 10, subpart C). 

Under § 10.205, representatives of the 

media may be permitted, subject to 

certain limitations, to videotape, film, or 

otherwise record FDA’s public 

administrative proceedings, including 

presentations by participants. The 

hearing will be transcribed as stipulated 

in § 15.30(b) (see Transcripts). To the 

extent that the conditions for the 

hearing, as described in this notice, 

conflict with any provisions set out in 

part 15, this notice acts as a waiver of 

those provisions as specified in 

§ 15.30(h). 

Dated: June 26, 2018. 

Leslie Kux, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14052 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2017–0696; FRL–9979– 

82—Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Vermont; 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from Vermont that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act)—including the interstate 

transport provisions—for the 2012 fine 

particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. This 

action is being taken under the Clean 

Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2017–0696, to the 

www.regulations.gov website or via 

email to simcox.alison@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted to the 

www.regulations.gov website, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

www.regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the ‘‘For 

Further Information Contact’’ section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. Publicly available docket 

materials are available at 

www.regulations.gov or at the 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 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Unit, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, tel. 

(617) 918–1684; simcox.alison@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

A. What Vermont SIP submissions does 

this rulemaking address? 

B. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

these SIP submissions? 

III. EPA’s Review 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission Limits 

and Other Control Measures 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and for 

Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary Source 

Monitoring System 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area 

Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation With 

Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Visibility Protection 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/ 

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

A. What Vermont SIP submissions does 

this rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses a SIP 

submission from the Vermont 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (VT DEC). The state 

submitted its infrastructure SIP for the 

2012 fine particle (PM2.5 1) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

on October 31, 2017. This included an 

enclosure addressing the ‘‘Good 

Neighbor’’ (or ‘‘transport’’) provisions 

for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA). Under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, 

states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that SIPs 

provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30599 

2This memorandum and other referenced 

guidance documents and memoranda are included 

in the docket for this action. 

3See, for example, EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 

66964, 67034 (November 12, 2008). 

B. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting on a SIP submission 

from Vermont that addresses the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The requirement for states to make a 

SIP submission of this type arises out of 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). 

Pursuant to these sections, each state 

must submit a SIP that provides for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each primary or 

secondary NAAQS. States must make 

such SIP submission ‘‘within 3 years (or 

such shorter period as the Administrator 

may prescribe) after the promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS.’’ This 

requirement is triggered by the 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS and is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any other action. Section 

110(a)(2) includes the specific elements 

that ‘‘each such plan’’ must address. 

EPA commonly refers to such SIP 

submissions intended to satisfy the 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

submissions. Although the term 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ does not appear in 

the CAA, EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this type of SIP submission 

from submissions that are intended to 

satisfy other SIP requirements under the 

CAA, such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources (‘‘SSM’’ 

emissions) that may be contrary to the 

CAA and EPA’s policies addressing 

such excess emissions; (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

purport to permit revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (‘‘director’s 

discretion’’); and, (iii) existing 

provisions for Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) programs that may 

be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final New 

Source Review (NSR) Improvement 

Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 

13, 2007) (‘‘NSR Reform’’). Instead, EPA 

has the authority to address each one of 

these substantive areas separately. A 

detailed history, interpretation, and 

rationale for EPA’s approach to 

infrastructure SIP requirements can be 

found in EPA’s May 13, 2014, proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS’’ in the section, ‘‘What is the 

scope of this rulemaking?’’ See 79 FR 

27241 at 27242–45. 

II. What guidance is EPA using to 

evaluate these SIP submissions? 

EPA highlighted the statutory 

requirement to submit infrastructure 

SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of 

a new NAAQS in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Guidance). EPA has issued additional 

guidance documents and memoranda, 

including a September 13, 2013, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’ (2013 

Guidance) and a September 25, 2009, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 

24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2009 Guidance).2

With respect to the Good Neighbor 

provision, the most recent relevant 

document was a memorandum 

published on March 17, 2016, entitled 

‘‘Information on the Interstate Transport 

‘Good Neighbor’ Provision for the 2012 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards under 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’’ 

(2016 memorandum). The 2016 

memorandum describes EPA’s past 

approach to addressing interstate 

transport, and provides EPA’s general 

review of relevant modeling data and air 

quality projections as they relate to the 

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 

memorandum provides information 

relevant to EPA Regional office review 

of the CAA section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

‘‘Good Neighbor’’ provision 

requirements in infrastructure SIPs with 

respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. This rulemaking considers 

information provided in that 

memorandum. 

III. EPA’s Review 

In this notice of proposed rulemaking, 

EPA is proposing action on a SIP 

submission from the state of Vermont. 

In its submission, Vermont presents a 

detailed list of Vermont Laws and 

previously SIP-approved Air Quality 

Regulations showing how the various 

components of its EPA-approved SIP 

meet each of the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. The following review evaluates 

the state’s submissions in light of 

section 110(a)(2) requirements and 

relevant EPA guidance. 

For Vermont’s October 31, 2017 

submission addressing the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, we reviewed all Section 

110(a)(2) elements, including the 

transport provisions, but excluding the 

three areas discussed above under the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)–Emission Limits 

and Other Control Measures 

This section (also referred to in this 

action as an element) of the Act requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limits and other control measures, 

means or techniques, schedules for 

compliance, and other related matters. 

However, EPA has long interpreted 

emission limits and control measures 

for attaining the standards as being due 

when nonattainment planning 

requirements are due.3 In the context of 

an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not 

evaluating the existing SIP provisions 

for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only 

evaluating whether the state’s SIP has 

basic structural provisions for the 

implementation of the NAAQS. 

Vermont’s infrastructure submittal for 

this element cites Vermont Statutes 

Annotated (V.S.A) and several Vermont 

Air Pollution Control Regulations (VT 

APCR) as follows: Vermont’s 10 V.S.A. 

§ 554, ‘‘Powers,’’ authorizes the 

Secretary of the Vermont Agency of 

Natural Resources (ANR) to ‘‘[a]dopt, 

amend and repeal rules, implementing 

the provisions’’ of Vermont’s air 

pollution control laws set forth in 10 

V.S.A. chapter 23. It also authorizes the 

Secretary to ‘‘conduct studies, 

investigations and research relating to 

air contamination and air pollution’’ 

and to ‘‘[d]etermine by appropriate 

means the degree of air contamination 

and air pollution in the state and the 

several parts thereof.’’ Ten V.S.A. § 556, 

‘‘Permits for the construction or 

modification of air contaminant 

sources,’’ requires applicants to obtain 

permits for constructing or modifying 

air contaminant sources, and 10 V.S.A. 

§ 558, ‘‘Emission control requirements,’’ 

authorizes the Secretary ‘‘to establish 

emission control requirements . . . 

necessary to prevent, abate, or control 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30600 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

4The citations reference the most recent EPA 

approval of the stated rule, or of revisions to the 

rule. For example, § 5–252 was initially approved 

on February 4, 1977 (42 FR 6811), with various 

revisions being approved since then, with the most 

recent approval of revisions to the applicability 

section occurring on August 1, 2016 (81 FR 50342). 

5See EPA approval letter located in the docket for 

this action. 

6EPA considers the evaluation of permit 

provisions that implement Part D to be outside the 

scope of an infrastructure SIP action because SIPs 

incorporating necessary local nonattainment area 

controls are due on separate schedules, pursuant to 

CAA section 172 and the various pollutant-specific 

subparts 2 through 5 of part D. Thus, our review 

under section 110(a)(2)(C) does not evaluate the 

nonattainment NSR program required by part D of 

the Act. We are only evaluating the state’s PSD 

program as required by part C of the Act and the 

state’s minor source program (applicable regardless 

of attainment status) as required by section 

110(a)(2)(C). 

air pollution.’’ EPA approved 10 V.S.A. 

§ 554 on June 27, 2017 (82 FR 29005). 

The Vermont submittal cites more 

than 20 specific rules that the state has 

adopted to control the emissions of 

PM2.5 and its precursors: sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (NOX). A 

few, with their EPA approval citation 4

are listed here: § 5–201—Open Burning 

Prohibited (63 FR 19825; April 22, 

1998); § 5–251—Control of Nitrogen 

Oxides Emissions (81 FR 50342; August 

1, 2016); § 5–252—Control of Sulfur 

Dioxide Emissions (81 FR 50342; 

August 1, 2016); § 5–261—Control of 

Hazardous Air Contaminants (47 FR 

6014; February 10, 1982); § 5–502— 

Major Stationary Sources and Major 

Modifications (81 FR 50342; August 1, 

2016); § 5–702—Excessive Smoke 

Emissions from Motor Vehicles (45 FR 

10775; February 19, 1980). 

Based upon EPA’s review of the 

submittals, EPA proposes that Vermont 

meets the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As previously noted, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions or rules related 

to SSM or director’s discretion in the 

context of section 110(a)(2)(A). 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

This section requires SIPs to provide 

for establishing and operating ambient 

air quality monitors, collecting and 

analyzing ambient air quality data, and 

making these data available to EPA 

upon request. Each year, states submit 

annual air monitoring network plans to 

EPA for review and approval. EPA’s 

review of these annual monitoring plans 

includes our evaluation of whether the 

state: (i) Monitors air quality at 

appropriate locations throughout the 

state using EPA-approved Federal 

Reference Methods or Federal 

Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) 

submits data to EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS) in a timely manner; and 

(iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with 

prior notification of any planned 

changes to monitoring sites or the 

network plan. 

State law authorizes the Secretary of 

ANR, or authorized representative, to 

‘‘conduct studies, investigations and 

research relating to air contamination 

and air pollution’’ and to ‘‘[d]etermine 

by appropriate means the degree of air 

contamination and air pollution in the 

state and the several parts thereof.’’ See 

10 V.S.A. § 554(8), (9). VT DEC, one of 

several departments within ANR, 

operates an air quality monitoring 

network, and EPA approved the state’s 

2017 Annual Air Monitoring Network 

Plan for PM2.5 on August 23, 2017.5

Furthermore, VT DEC populates AQS 

with air quality monitoring data in a 

timely manner, and provides EPA with 

prior notification when considering a 

change to its monitoring network or 

plan. EPA proposes that VT DEC has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 

States are required to include a 

program providing for enforcement of 

the emission limits and control 

measures described in section 

110(a)(2)(A) and for the regulation of 

construction of new or modified 

stationary sources to meet NSR 

requirements under PSD and 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA 

(sections 160–169B) addresses PSD, 

while part D of the CAA (sections 171– 

193) addresses NNSR requirements.6

The evaluation of each state’s 

submission addressing the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the 

following: (i) Enforcement of SIP 

measures; (ii) PSD program for major 

sources and major modifications; and 

(iii) a permit program for minor sources 

and minor modifications. 

Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

Measures 

State law provides the Secretary of 

ANR with the authority to enforce air 

pollution control requirements, 

including SIP-approved 10 V.S.A. § 554, 

which authorizes the Secretary of ANR 

to ‘‘[i]ssue orders as may be necessary 

to effectuate the purposes of [the state’s 

air pollution control laws] and enforce 

the same by all appropriate 

administrative and judicial 

proceedings.’’ In addition, Vermont’s 

SIP-approved regulations VT APCR § 5– 

501, ‘‘Review of Construction or 

Modification of Air Contaminant 

Sources,’’ and VT APCR § 5–502, ‘‘Major 

Stationary Sources and Major 

Modifications,’’ establish requirements 

for permits to construct, modify or 

operate major air contaminant sources. 

EPA proposes that Vermont has met 

the enforcement of SIP measures 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: PSD Program for Major 

Sources and Major Modifications 

PSD applies to new major sources or 

modifications made to major sources for 

pollutants where the area in which the 

source is located is in attainment of, or 

unclassifiable with regard to, the 

relevant NAAQS. The EPA interprets 

the CAA to require each state to make 

an infrastructure SIP submission for a 

new or revised NAAQS demonstrating 

that the air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program in place satisfying 

the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. VT DEC’s 

EPA–approved PSD rules, contained at 

VT APCR Subchapters I, IV, and V, 

contain provisions that address 

applicable requirements for all regulated 

NSR pollutants, including GHGs. 

With respect to current requirements 

for PM2.5, we evaluate Vermont’s PSD 

program for consistency with two EPA 

rules. The first is a final rule issued May 

16, 2008, entitled ‘‘Implementation of 

the New Source Review (NSR) Program 

for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR Rule). 

See 73 FR 28321. The 2008 NSR Rule 

finalized several new requirements for 

SIPs to address sources that emit direct 

PM2.5 and other pollutants that 

contribute to secondary PM2.5

formation, including requirements for 

NSR permits to address pollutants 

responsible for the secondary formation 

of PM2.5, otherwise known as 

precursors. As part of identifying 

precursors to PM2.5, the 2008 NSR Rule 

also required states to revise the 

definition of ‘‘significant’’ as it relates to 

a net emissions increase or the potential 

of a source to emit pollutants. Finally, 

the 2008 NSR Rule requires states to 

account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables for applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 

PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30601 

7On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit held that EPA should have 

issued the 2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the 

CAA’s requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas 

(Title I, Part D, subpart 4), and not the general 

requirements for nonattainment areas under subpart 

1. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428. The 

EPA’s approval of Vermont’s infrastructure SIP as 

to elements C, D(i)(II), or J with respect to the PSD 

requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR Rule 

does not conflict with the court’s opinion. For more 

information, see 80 FR 42446, July 17, 2015). 

after January 1, 2011.7 These 

requirements are codified in 40 CFR 

51.166(b) and 52.21(b). States were 

required to revise their SIPs consistent 

with these changes to the federal 

regulations. On August 1, 2016 (81 FR 

50342), EPA approved revisions to 

Vermont’s PSD program satisfying these 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule. See 

also 82 FR 15671 at 15674–75 (March 

30, 2017); 82 FR 29005 (June 27, 2017). 

The second is a final rule issued 

October 20, 2010, entitled ‘‘Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). See 75 FR 

64864. This rule established several 

components for making PSD permitting 

determinations for PM2.5, including 

adding the required elements for PM2.5

into a state’s existing system of 

‘‘increment analysis,’’ which is the 

mechanism used in the PSD permitting 

program to estimate significant 

deterioration of ambient air quality for 

a pollutant in relation to new source 

construction or modification. The 2010 

NSR Rule revised the existing system for 

determining increment consumption by 

establishing a new ‘‘major source 

baseline date’’ for PM2.5 and by 

establishing a trigger date for PM2.5 in 

relation to the definition of ‘‘minor 

source baseline date.’’ Lastly, the 2010 

NSR Rule revised the definition of 

‘‘baseline area’’ to include a level of 

significance of 0.3 micrograms per cubic 

meter, annual average, for PM2.5. These 

requirements are codified in 40 CFR 

51.166(b) and (c) and in 40 CFR 52.21(b) 

and (c). States were required to revise 

their SIPs consistent with these changes 

to the federal regulations. 

On August 1, 2016 (81 FR 50342) and 

September 14, 2016 (81 FR 63102), EPA 

approved revisions to the Vermont SIP 

that address certain aspects of EPA’s 

2010 NSR rule. In addition, on March 

19, 2018, EPA approved the state’s 

method for determining the amount of 

PSD increments available to a new or 

modified major source. See 83 FR 

11884. As a result, Vermont’s approved 

PSD program meets the current 

requirements for PM2.5.

On March 19, 2018 (83 FR 11884), 

EPA also approved revisions to 

Vermont’s PSD program that addressed 

the PSD requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

Rule to Implement the 8- Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule To 

Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 

Amendments Relating to New Source 

Review and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon 

Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and 

Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline,’’ which 

obligated states to revise their PSD 

programs to explicitly identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone. See 70 FR 71612 

(November 29, 2005). Therefore, 

Vermont’s approved PSD program meets 

the current requirements for ozone. 

With respect to GHGs, on June 23, 

2014, the United States Supreme Court 

issued a decision addressing the 

application of PSD permitting 

requirements to GHG emissions. Utility 

Air Regulatory Group v. Envtl. Prot. 

Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme 

Court said that EPA may not treat GHGs 

as an air pollutant for purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source required to obtain a PSD permit. 

The Court also said that EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). 

In accordance with the Supreme 

Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) 

issued an amended judgment vacating 

the regulations that implemented Step 2 

of the EPA’s PSD and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not 

the regulations that implement Step 1 of 

that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule 

covers sources that are required to 

obtain a PSD permit based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2 

applied to sources that emitted only 

GHGs above the thresholds triggering 

the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. 

The amended judgment preserves, 

without the need for additional 

rulemaking by EPA, the application of 

the BACT requirement to GHG 

emissions from Step 1 or ‘‘anyway’’ 

sources. With respect to Step 2 sources, 

the D.C. Circuit’s amended judgment 

vacated the regulations at issue in the 

litigation, including 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to the extent they 

require a stationary source to obtain a 

PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the 

only pollutant (i) that the source emits 

or has the potential to emit above the 

applicable major source thresholds, or 

(ii) for which there is a significant 

emission increase from a modification.’’ 

On August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50199), 

EPA amended its PSD and Title V 

regulations to remove from the Code of 

Federal Regulations portions of those 

regulations that the D.C. Circuit 

specifically identified as vacated. EPA 

intends to further revise the PSD and 

Title V regulations to fully implement 

the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit 

rulings in a separate rulemaking. This 

future rulemaking will include revisions 

to additional definitions in the PSD 

regulations. 

Some states have begun to revise their 

existing SIP-approved PSD programs in 

light of these court decisions, and some 

states may prefer not to initiate this 

process until they have more 

information about the additional 

planned revisions to EPA’s PSD 

regulations. EPA is not expecting states 

to have revised their PSD programs in 

anticipation of EPA’s additional actions 

to revise its PSD program rules in 

response to the court decisions for 

purposes of infrastructure SIP 

submissions. At present, EPA has 

determined that Vermont’s SIP is 

sufficient to satisfy element C with 

respect to GHGs because the PSD 

permitting program previously 

approved by EPA into the SIP continues 

to require that PSD permits (otherwise 

required based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs) contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. Although the 

approved Vermont PSD permitting 

program may currently contain 

provisions that are no longer necessary 

in light of the Supreme Court decision, 

this does not render the infrastructure 

SIP submission inadequate to satisfy 

element C. The SIP contains the 

necessary PSD requirements at this 

time, and the application of those 

requirements is not impeded by the 

presence of other previously-approved 

provisions regarding the permitting of 

sources of GHGs that EPA does not 

consider necessary at this time in light 

of the Supreme Court decision. 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court 

decision does not affect EPA’s proposed 

approval of Vermont’s infrastructure SIP 

as to the requirements of element C. 

For the purposes of the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA 

reiterates that NSR Reform regulations 

are not in the scope of these actions. 

Therefore, we are not taking action on 

existing NSR Reform regulations for 

Vermont. 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

Vermont’s infrastructure SIP for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30602 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

include a PSD permitting program in the 

SIP that covers the requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants as required by 

part C of the Act. 

Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction 

Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor 

Modifications 

To address the pre-construction 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of minor stationary sources 

and minor modifications of major 

stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP 

submission should identify the existing 

EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or 

include new provisions that govern the 

minor source pre-construction program 

that regulate emissions of the relevant 

NAAQS pollutants. EPA approved 

revisions to Vermont’s minor NSR 

program on August 1, 2016 (81 FR 

50342). Vermont and EPA rely on the 

existing minor NSR program to ensure 

that new and modified sources not 

captured by the major NSR permitting 

programs, VT APCR § 5–502, do not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

We are proposing to find that 

Vermont has met the requirement to 

have a SIP-approved minor new source 

review permit program as required 

under Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

This section contains a 

comprehensive set of air quality 

management elements pertaining to the 

transport of air pollution with which 

states must comply. It covers the 

following five topics, categorized as subelements: Sub-element 1, Significant 

contribution to nonattainment, and 

interference with maintenance of a 

NAAQS; Sub-element 2, PSD; Subelement 3, Visibility protection; Subelement 4, Interstate pollution 

abatement; and Sub-element 5, 

International pollution abatement. Subelements 1 through 3 above are found 

under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act, 

and these items are further categorized 

into the four prongs discussed below, 

two of which are found within subelement 1. Sub-elements 4 and 5 are 

found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of 

the Act and include provisions insuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

of the Act relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

Sub-Element 1: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to 

Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere 

With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong 

2) 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA 

requires a SIP to prohibit any emissions 

activity in the state that will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in any downwind state. EPA 

commonly refers to these requirements 

as prong 1 (significant contribution to 

nonattainment) and prong 2 

(interference with maintenance), or 

jointly as the ‘‘Good Neighbor’’ or 

‘‘transport’’ provisions of the CAA. This 

rulemaking proposes action on the 

portion of Vermont’s October 31, 2017 

SIP submission that addresses the prong 

1 and 2 requirements with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA has developed a consistent 

framework for addressing the prong 1 

and 2 interstate-transport requirements 

with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

several previous federal rulemakings. 

The four basic steps of that framework 

include: (1) Identifying downwind 

receptors that are expected to have 

problems attaining or maintaining the 

NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind 

states contribute to these identified 

problems in amounts sufficient to 

warrant further review and analysis; (3) 

for states identified as contributing to 

downwind air quality problems, 

identifying upwind emissions 

reductions necessary to prevent an 

upwind state from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS downwind; and (4) for states 

that are found to have emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, 

reducing the identified upwind 

emissions through adoption of 

permanent and enforceable measures. 

This framework was most recently 

applied with respect to PM2.5 in the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

which addressed both the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 

1997 ozone standard. See 76 FR 48208 

(August 8, 2011). 

EPA’s analysis for CSAPR, conducted 

consistent with the four-step framework, 

included air-quality modeling that 

evaluated the impacts of 38 eastern 

states on identified receptors in the 

eastern United States. EPA indicated 

that, for step 2 of the framework, states 

with impacts on downwind receptors 

that are below the contribution 

threshold of 1% of the relevant NAAQS 

would not be considered to significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the relevant 

NAAQS, and would, therefore, not be 

included in CSAPR. See 76 FR 48220, 

August 8, 2011. EPA further indicated 

that such states could rely on EPA’s 

analysis for CSAPR as technical support 

in order to demonstrate that their 

existing or future interstate transport 

SIP submittals are adequate to address 

the transport requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 

relevant NAAQS. Id. 

In addition, as noted above, on March 

17, 2016, EPA released the 2016 

memorandum to provide information to 

states as they develop SIPs addressing 

the Good Neighbor provision as it 

pertains to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Consistent with step 1 of the framework, 

the 2016 memorandum provides 

projected future-year annual PM2.5

design values for monitors throughout 

the country based on quality-assured 

and certified ambient-monitoring data 

and recent air-quality modeling and 

explains the methodology used to 

develop these projected design values. 

The memorandum also describes how 

the projected values can be used to help 

determine which monitors should be 

further evaluated to potentially address 

if emissions from other states 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

at these monitoring sites. The 2016 

memorandum explained that the 

pertinent year for evaluating air quality 

for purposes of addressing interstate 

transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is 

2021, the attainment deadline for 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas 

classified as Moderate. Accordingly, 

because the available data included 

2017 and 2025 projected average and 

maximum PM2.5 design values 

calculated through the CAMx 

photochemical model, the 

memorandum suggests approaches 

states might use to interpolate PM2.5

values at sites in 2021. 

For all, but one, monitoring sites in 

the eastern United States, the modeling 

data provided in the 2016 memorandum 

showed that monitors were expected to 

both attain and maintain the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025. The 

modeling results project that this one 

monitor, the Liberty monitor, (ID 

number 420030067), located in 

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, will 

be above the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

in 2017, but only under the model’s 

maximum projected conditions, which 

are used in EPA’s interstate transport 

framework to identify maintenance 

receptors. The Liberty monitor (along 

with all the other Allegheny County 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30603 

8See 2015 ozone NAAQS RIA at: www3.epa.gov/ 

ttnecas1/docs/20151001ria.pdf. 

monitors) is projected to both attain and 

maintain the NAAQS in 2025. The 2016 

memorandum suggests that under such 

a condition (again, where EPA’s 

photochemical modeling indicates an 

area will maintain the 2012 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025, but not in 2017), 

further analysis of the site should be 

performed to determine if the site may 

be a nonattainment or maintenance 

receptor in 2021 (which, again, is the 

attainment deadline for moderate PM2.5

areas). The memorandum also indicates 

that for certain states with incomplete 

ambient monitoring data, additional 

information including the latest 

available data, should be analyzed to 

determine whether there are potential 

downwind air quality problems that 

may be impacted by transported 

emissions. This rulemaking considers 

these analyses for Vermont, as well as 

additional analysis conducted by EPA 

during review of Vermont’s submittal. 

To develop the projected values 

presented in the memorandum, EPA 

used the results of nationwide 

photochemical air-quality modeling that 

it recently performed to support several 

rulemakings related to the ozone 

NAAQS. Base-year modeling was 

performed for 2011. Future-year 

modeling was performed for 2017 to 

support the proposed CSAPR Update for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 

75705 (December 3, 2015). Future-year 

modeling was also performed for 2025 

to support the Regulatory Impact 

Assessment of the final 2015 Ozone 

NAAQS.8 The outputs from these model 

runs included hourly concentrations of 

PM2.5 that were used in conjunction 

with measured data to project annual 

average PM2.5 design values for 2017 

and 2025. Areas that were designated as 

moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas for 

the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2014 

must attain the NAAQS by December 

31, 2021, or as expeditiously as 

practicable. Although neither the 

available 2017 nor 2025 future-year 

modeling data correspond directly to 

the future-year attainment deadline for 

moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 

EPA believes that the modeling 

information is still helpful for 

identifying potential nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors in the 2017–2021 

period. Assessing downwind PM2.5 airquality problems based on estimates of 

air-quality concentrations in a future 

year aligned with the relevant 

attainment deadline is consistent with 

the instructions from the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit in North Carolina v. 

EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911–12 (D.C. Cir. 

2008), that upwind emission reductions 

should be harmonized, to the extent 

possible, with the attainment deadlines 

for downwind areas. 

Vermont’s Submissions for Prongs 1 and 

2 

On October 31, 2017, VT DEC 

submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS that addressed 

prongs 1 and 2 for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. Vermont’s SIP submittal relied 

in part on EPA’s analysis performed for 

the CSAPR rulemaking to conclude that 

the state will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS in any downwind area. 

EPA analyzed the state’s October 2017 

submittal to determine whether it fully 

addressed the prong 1 and 2 transport 

provisions with respect to the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed below, EPA 

concludes that emissions of PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors (NOX and SO2) in 

Vermont will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state. 

As noted, the modeling discussed in 

EPA’s 2016 memorandum identified one 

potential maintenance receptor for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at the Liberty 

monitor (ID number 420030067), located 

in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The 

memorandum also identified certain 

states with incomplete ambient 

monitoring data as areas that may 

require further analysis to determine 

whether there are potential downwind 

air quality problems that may be 

impacted by transported emissions. 

While developing the 2011 CSAPR 

rulemaking, EPA modeled the impacts 

of all 38 eastern states in its modeling 

domain on fine particulate matter 

concentrations at downwind receptors 

in other states in the 2012 analysis year 

in order to evaluate the contribution of 

upwind states on downwind states with 

respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5. 

Although the modeling was not 

conducted for purposes of analyzing 

upwind states’ impacts on downwind 

receptors with respect to the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, the contribution analysis for 

the 1997 and 2006 standards can be 

informative for evaluating Vermont’s 

compliance with the Good Neighbor 

provision for the 2012 standard. 

This CSAPR modeling showed that 

Vermont had a very small impact (0.002 

mg/m3 annual PM2.5) on the Liberty 

monitor in Allegheny County, 

Pennsylvania, which is the only out-ofstate monitor that may be a 

nonattainment or maintenance receptor 

in 2021. (A spreadsheet showing CSAPR 

contributions for ozone and PM2.5 is 

included in docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0491–4228.) Although EPA has 

not proposed a particular threshold for 

evaluating the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA 

notes that Vermont’s impact on the 

Liberty monitor is far below the 

threshold of 1% for the annual 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., 0.12 mg/m3) that 

EPA previously used to evaluate the 

contribution of upwind states to 

downwind air-quality monitors. 

Therefore, even if the Liberty monitor 

were considered a receptor for purposes 

of transport, the EPA proposes to 

conclude that Vermont will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

at that monitor. 

In addition, the Liberty monitor is 

already close to attaining the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, and expected emissions 

reductions in the next four years will 

lead to additional reductions in 

measured PM2.5 concentrations. There 

are both local and regional components 

to measured PM2.5 levels. All monitors 

in Allegheny County have a regional 

component, with the Liberty monitor 

most strongly influenced by local 

sources. This is confirmed by the fact 

that annual average measured 

concentrations at the Liberty monitor 

have consistently been 2–4 mg/m3 higher 

than other monitors in Allegheny 

County. 

Specifically, previous CSAPR 

modeling showed that regional 

emissions from upwind states, 

particularly SO2 and NOx emissions, 

contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at the 

Liberty monitor. In recent years, large 

SO2 and NOX reductions from power 

plants have occurred in Pennsylvania 

and states upwind from the Greater 

Pittsburgh region. Pennsylvania’s energy 

sector emissions of SO2 will have 

decreased 166,000 tons between 2015– 

2017 as a result of CSAPR 

implementation. This is due to both the 

installation of emissions controls and 

retirements of electric generating units 

(EGUs). Projected power plant closures 

and additional emissions controls in 

Pennsylvania and upwind states will 

help further reduce both direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors. Regional emission 

reductions will continue to occur from 

current on-the-books federal and state 

regulations such as the federal on-road 

and non-road vehicle programs, and 

various rules for major stationary 

emissions sources. See proposed 

approval of the Ohio Infrastructure SIP 

for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (82 FR 

57689; December 7, 2017). 

In addition to regional emissions 

reductions and plant closures, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30604 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

9www.achd.net/air/pubs/SIPs/SO2_2010_

NAAQS_SIP_9-14-2017.pdf. 

10 Vermont’s PM2.5 design values for all ambient 

monitors from 2004–2006 through 2013–2015 are 

available on Table 6 of the 2015 Design Value 

Report at https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/ 

air-trends/air-quality-design-values_.html. 

11 24-hour and annual PM2.5 monitor values for 

individual monitoring sites throughout Vermont are 

available at www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/ 

monitor-values-report. 

12SO2, NOX and VOCs contribute to the 

formation of PM2.5. 

additional local reductions to both 

direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are 

expected to occur and should contribute 

to further declines in Allegheny 

County’s PM2.5 monitor concentrations. 

For example, significant SO2 reductions 

have recently occurred at US Steel’s 

integrated steel mill facilities in 

southern Allegheny County as part of a 

1-hr SO2 NAAQS SIP.9 Reductions are 

largely due to declining sulfur content 

in the Clairton Coke Work’s coke oven 

gas (COG). Because this COG is burned 

at US Steel’s Clairton Coke Works, Irvin 

Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, 

these reductions in sulfur content 

should contribute to much lower PM2.5

precursor emissions in the immediate 

future. The Allegheny SO2 SIP also 

projects lower SO2 emissions resulting 

from vehicle fuel standards, reductions 

in general emissions due to declining 

population in the Greater Pittsburgh 

region, and several shutdowns of 

significant sources of emissions in 

Allegheny County. 

EPA modeling projections, the recent 

downward trend in local and upwind 

emissions reductions, the expected 

continued downward trend in emissions 

between 2017 and 2021, and the 

downward trend in monitored PM2.5

concentrations all indicate that the 

Liberty monitor will attain and be able 

to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS by 2021. See proposed approval 

of the Ohio Infrastructure SIP (82 FR 

57689, December 7, 2017). 

As noted in the 2016 memorandum, 

several states have had recent dataquality issues identified as part of the 

PM2.5 designations process. In 

particular, some ambient PM2.5 data for 

certain time periods between 2009 and 

2013 in Florida, Illinois, Idaho, 

Tennessee, and Kentucky did not meet 

all data-quality requirements under 40 

CFR part 50, appendix L. The lack of 

data means that the relevant areas in 

those states could potentially be in 

nonattainment or be maintenance 

receptors in 2021. However, EPA’s 

analysis for the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking 

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

determined that Vermont’s impact to all 

these downwind receptors would be 

well below the 1% contribution 

threshold for this NAAQS. That 

conclusion informs the analysis of 

Vermont’s contributions for purposes of 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as well. Given 

this, and the fact, discussed below, that 

the state’s PM2.5 design values for all 

ambient monitors have been well below 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS during the 

period from 2009 to 2013, EPA 

concludes that it is highly unlikely that 

Vermont significantly contributes to 

nonattainment or interferes with 

maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in areas with data-quality issues.10

Information in Enclosure 5 of 

Vermont’s October 2017 SIP submission 

(Vermont Good Neighbor SIP) 

corroborates EPA’s proposed conclusion 

that Vermont’s SIP meets its obligations 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

This enclosure includes 2011–2015 

design values for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS in the bordering states of 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire and 

New York, which are all well below the 

annual standard (12.0 mg/m3). In 

addition, the analysis includes a graph 

showing that the design-value trend at 

the four ambient monitoring locations in 

Vermont declined from 2005 to 2016. 

This technical analysis is supported 

by additional indications that air quality 

is improving and emissions are falling 

in Vermont. Specifically, certified 

annual PM2.5 monitor values (for 

monitors meeting minimum data 

completeness criteria) recorded since 

2014 show that the highest value in 

2015 was 9.1 mg/m3 at a monitor in 

Rutland, and the highest value in 2016 

was 6.8 mg/m3 at the same monitor in 

Rutland.11

Second, Vermont’s sources are wellcontrolled. Vermont’s 2017 submission 

indicates that the state has many SIPapproved rules and programs that limit 

emissions of PM2.5, including rules to 

control emissions of SO2, PM2.5, VOCs 

and NOX 12; Vermont’s PSD program 

contained in VT APCR Subchapters I, 

IV, and V; Vermont’s Regional Haze SIP; 

and Vermont’s Title V program 

contained in Subchapter X of VT APCR. 

In addition, Vermont adopted 

limitations on sulfur in fuel (VT APCR 

§ 5–221(1)) on September 28, 2011. 

It should also be noted that Vermont 

is not in the CSAPR program because 

EPA analyses show that the state does 

not emit ozone-season NOX at a level 

that contributes significantly to nonattainment or interferes with 

maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state. 

For the reasons explained herein, EPA 

agrees with Vermont’s conclusions and 

proposes to determine that Vermont will 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in any other state. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve the October 2017 

infrastructure SIP submission from 

Vermont addressing prongs 1 and 2 of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3) 

To prevent significant deterioration of 

air quality, this sub-element requires 

SIPs to include provisions that prohibit 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures that are required in any 

other state’s SIP under Part C of the 

CAA. As explained in the 2013 

Guidance, a state may meet this 

requirement with respect to in-state 

sources and pollutants that are subject 

to PSD permitting through a 

comprehensive PSD permitting program 

that applies to all regulated NSR 

pollutants and that satisfies the 

requirements of EPA’s PSD 

implementation rules. As discussed 

above under element C, Vermont has 

such a PSD permitting program. For instate sources not subject to PSD, this 

requirement can be satisfied through a 

fully-approved nonattainment new 

source review (NNSR) program with 

respect to any previous NAAQS. EPA’s 

latest approval of some revisions to 

Vermont’s NNSR regulations was on 

August 1, 2016 (81 FR 50342). 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

this sub-element for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility Protection 

(Prong 4) 

With regard to applicable 

requirements for visibility protection of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are 

subject to visibility and regional-haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the CAA (which includes sections 169A 

and 169B). The 2009 Guidance, 2011 

Guidance, and 2013 Guidance 

recommend that these requirements can 

be satisfied by an approved SIP 

addressing reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment, if required, or an 

approved SIP addressing regional haze. 

A fully approved regional haze SIP 

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308 will ensure that emissions from 

sources under an air agency’s 

jurisdiction are not interfering with 

measures required to be included in 

other air agencies’ plans to protect 

visibility. Vermont’s Regional Haze SIP 

was approved by EPA on May 22, 2012 

(77 FR 30212). Accordingly, EPA 

proposes that Vermont has met the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30605 

13 VT ANR’s authority to carry out the provisions 

of the SIP identified in 40 CFR 51.230 is discussed 

in the sections of this document assessing elements 

A, C, F, and G, as applicable. 

visibility protection requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 4: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate Pollution 

Abatement 

This sub-element requires that each 

SIP contain provisions requiring 

compliance with requirements of 

section 126 relating to interstate 

pollution abatement. Section 126(a) 

requires new or modified sources to 

notify neighboring states of potential 

impacts from the source. The statute 

does not specify the method by which 

the source should provide the 

notification. States with SIP-approved 

PSD programs must have a provision 

requiring such notification by new or 

modified sources. 

On August 1, 2016 (81 FR 50342), 

EPA approved revisions to VT APCR 

§ 5–501, which includes a provision that 

requires VT ANR to provide notice of a 

draft PSD permit to, among other 

entities, any state whose lands may be 

affected by emissions from the source. 

VT APCR § 5–501(7)(c). Vermont’s 

public notice requirements are 

consistent with the Federal PSD 

program’s public notice requirements 

for affected states under 40 CFR 

51.166(q). Therefore, we propose to 

approve Vermont’s compliance with the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 126(a) with respect to with 

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Vermont has no obligations under any 

other provision of section 126, and no 

source or sources within the state are 

the subject of an active finding under 

section 126 of the CAA with respect to 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 5: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—International Pollution 

Abatement 

This sub-element also requires each 

SIP to contain provisions requiring 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements of section 115 relating to 

international pollution abatement. 

There are no final findings under 

section 115 of the CAA against Vermont 

with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing that 

Vermont has met the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to section 

115 of the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each 

SIP to provide assurances that the state 

will have adequate personnel, funding, 

and legal authority under state law to 

carry out its SIP. In addition, section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state to 

comply with the requirements under 

CAA section 128 about state boards. 

Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires 

that, where a state relies upon local or 

regional governments or agencies for the 

implementation of its SIP provisions, 

the state retain responsibility for 

ensuring implementation of SIP 

obligations with respect to relevant 

NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), 

however, does not apply to this action 

because Vermont does not rely upon 

local or regional governments or 

agencies for the implementation of its 

SIP provisions. 

Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, 

Funding, and Legal Authority Under 

State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and 

Related Issues 

Vermont, through its infrastructure 

SIP submittals, has documented that its 

air agency has the requisite authority 

and resources to carry out its SIP 

obligations. Vermont cites 10 V.S.A. 

§ 553, which designates ANR as the air 

pollution control agency of the state, 

and 10 V.S.A § 554, which provides the 

Secretary of ANR with the power to 

‘‘[a]dopt, amend and repeal rules, 

implementing the provisions’’ of 10 

V.S.A. Chapter 23, Air Pollution 

Control, and to ‘‘[a]ppoint and employ 

personnel and consultants as may be 

necessary for the administration of’’ 10 

V.S.A. Chapter 23. Section 554 also 

authorizes the Secretary of ANR to 

‘‘[a]ccept, receive and administer grants 

or other funds or gifts from public and 

private agencies, including the federal 

government, for the purposes of carrying 

out any of the functions of’’ 10 V.S.A. 

Chapter 23. Additionally, 3 V.S.A. 

§ 2822 provides the Secretary of ANR 

with the authority to assess air permit 

and registration fees, which fund state 

air programs. In addition to Federal 

funding and permit and registration 

fees, Vermont notes that the Vermont 

Air Quality and Climate Division 

(AQCD) receives state funding to 

implement its air programs.13

EPA proposes that Vermont has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with 

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: State Board 

Requirements Under Section 128 of the 

CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each 

SIP to contain provisions that comply 

with the state board requirements of 

section 128 of the CAA. That provision 

contains two explicit requirements: (1) 

That any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under 

this chapter shall have at least a 

majority of members who represent the 

public interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits and 

enforcement orders under this chapter, 

and (2) that any potential conflicts of 

interest by members of such board or 

body or the head of an executive agency 

with similar powers be adequately 

disclosed. 

In Vermont, no board or body 

approves permits or enforcement orders; 

these are approved by the Secretary of 

Vermont ANR. Thus, with respect to 

this sub-element, Vermont is subject 

only to the requirements of paragraph 

(a)(2) of section 128 of the CAA 

(regarding conflicts of interest). On June 

27, 2017, EPA approved Vermont’s SIP 

revision addressing the conflict of 

interest requirements of section 128. See 

82 FR 29005. For a detailed analysis 

explaining how Vermont meets these 

requirements, see EPA’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking for that action. 82 

FR 15671, 15678 (March 30, 2017). 

EPA proposes that Vermont has met 

the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for this sub-element for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary 

Source Monitoring System 

States must establish a system to 

monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and submit periodic emissions 

reports. Each plan shall also require the 

installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources. The state plan shall 

also require periodic reports on the 

nature and amounts of emissions and 

emissions-related data from such 

sources, and correlation of such reports 

by each state agency with any emission 

limitations or standards. Lastly, the 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

Vermont’s infrastructure submittal 

references existing state regulations 

previously approved by EPA that 

require sources to monitor emissions 

and submit reports. In particular, VT 

APCR § 5–405, Required Air 

Monitoring, (45 FR 10775, February 19, 

1980), provides that ANR ‘‘may require 

the owner or operator of any air 

contaminant source to install, use and 

maintain such monitoring equipment 

and records, establish and maintain 

such records, and make such periodic 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30606 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

14 24-hour PM2.5 monitor values for individual 

monitoring sites throughout Vermont are available 

at www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitorvalues-report. 

emission reports as [ANR] shall 

prescribe.’’ Moreover, section 5–402, 

Written Reports When Requested (81 FR 

50342; August 1, 2016), authorizes ANR 

to ‘‘require written reports from the 

person operating or responsible for any 

proposed or existing air contaminant 

source, which reports shall contain,’’ 

among other things, information 

concerning the ‘‘nature and amount and 

time periods or durations of emissions 

and such other information as may be 

relevant to the air pollution potential of 

the source. These reports shall also 

include the results of such source 

testing as may be required under 

Section 5–404 herein.’’ Section 5–404, 

Methods for Sampling and Testing of 

Sources (45 FR 10775 February 19, 

1980) in turn authorizes ANR to 

‘‘require the owner or operator of [a] 

source to conduct tests to determine the 

quantity of particulate and/or gaseous 

matter being emitted’’ and requires a 

source to allow access, should ANR 

have reason to believe that emission 

limits are being violated by the source, 

and allows ANR ‘‘to conduct tests of 

[its] own to determine compliance.’’ In 

addition, operators of sources that emit 

more than five tons of any and all air 

contaminants per year are required to 

register the source with the Secretary of 

ANR and to submit emissions data 

annually, pursuant to § 5–802, 

Requirement for Registration, and § 5– 

803, Registration Procedure (60 FR 2524 

January 10, 1995). Vermont also certifies 

that nothing in its SIP would preclude 

the use, including the exclusive use, of 

any credible evidence or information, 

relevant to whether a source would have 

been in compliance with applicable 

requirements if the appropriate 

performance or compliance test or 

procedure had been performed. See 40 

CFR 51.212(c). 

Vermont’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

provides for correlation by VT DEC of 

emissions reports by sources with 

applicable emission limitations or 

standards, as required by CAA 

§ 110(a)(2)(F)(iii). Vermont receives 

emissions data through its annual 

registration program. Currently, VT DEC 

analyzes a portion of these data 

manually to correlate a facility’s actual 

emissions with permit conditions, 

NAAQS, and, if applicable, hazardous 

air contaminant action levels. VT DEC 

reports that it is in the process of setting 

up an integrated electronic database that 

will merge all air contaminant source 

information across permitting, 

compliance and registration programs, 

so that information concerning permit 

conditions, annual emissions data, and 

compliance data will be accessible in 

one location for a particular air 

contaminant source. The database will 

be capable of correlating certain 

emissions data with permit conditions 

and other applicable standards 

electronically, where feasible, to allow 

VT DEC to complete this correlation 

more efficiently and accurately. 

Regarding the section 110(a)(2)(F) 

requirement that the SIP ensure that the 

public has availability to emission 

reports, Vermont certified in its October 

31, 2017 submittal for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS that the Vermont Public 

Records Act, 1 V.S.A. §§ 315–320, 

provides for the free and open 

examination of public records, 

including emissions reports. 

Furthermore, 10 V.S.A. § 563 

specifically provides that the ANR 

‘‘Secretary shall not withhold emissions 

data and emission monitoring data from 

public inspection or review’’ and ‘‘shall 

keep confidential any record or other 

information furnished to or obtained by 

the Secretary concerning an air 

contaminant source, other than 

emissions data and emission monitoring 

data, that qualifies as a trade secret 

pursuant to 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(9).’’ 

(emphasis added). EPA approved 

section 563 into the Vermont SIP on 

June 27, 2017 (82 FR 29005). 

Consequently, EPA proposes that 

Vermont has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

This section requires that a plan 

provide for state authority analogous to 

that provided to the EPA Administrator 

in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate 

contingency plans to implement such 

authority. Section 303 of the CAA 

provides authority to the EPA 

Administrator to seek a court order to 

restrain any source from causing or 

contributing to emissions that present 

an ‘‘imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health or 

welfare, or the environment.’’ Section 

303 further authorizes the Administrator 

to issue ‘‘such orders as may be 

necessary to protect public health or 

welfare or the environment’’ in the 

event that ‘‘it is not practicable to assure 

prompt protection . . . by 

commencement of such civil action.’’ 

On June 27, 2017, EPA approved a 

Vermont SIP revision addressing the 

requirement that the plan provide for 

state authority comparable to that in 

section 303 of the CAA. See 82 FR 

29005. For a detailed analysis 

explaining how Vermont meets this 

requirement, see EPA’s March 30, 2017 

(82 FR 15671, 15679) notice of proposed 

rulemaking for that action. Therefore, 

we are proposing to approve the state’s 

submittals with respect to this 

requirement of Section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that 

Vermont have an approved contingency 

plan for any Air Quality Control Region 

(AQCR) within the state that is 

classified as Priority I, IA, or II for 

certain pollutants. See 40 CFR 51.150, 

51.152(c). In general, contingency plans 

for Priority I, IA, and II areas must meet 

the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart H (40 CFR 51.150 

through 51.153) (‘‘Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes’’) for the 

relevant NAAQS, if the NAAQS is 

covered by those regulations. In the case 

of PM2.5, EPA has not issued regulations 

that provide the ambient levels to 

classify different priority levels for the 

2012 standard (or any PM2.5 NAAQS). 

EPA’s 2009 Guidance recommends that 

states develop emergency episode plans 

for any area that has monitored and 

recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels greater 

than 140 mg/m3 since 2006. EPA’s 

review of Vermont’s certified air quality 

data in AQS indicates that the highest 

24-hour PM2.5 level since 2006 was 43.5 

mg/m3, which occurred in 2015 at the 

ambient monitor in Rutland.14 Thus, an 

emergency episode plan for PM2.5 is not 

necessary. Although not expected, if 

PM2.5 conditions were to change, 

Vermont does have general authority, as 

noted previously (i.e., 10 V.S.A. § 560 

and 10 V.S.A. § 8009), to order a source 

to cease operations if it is determined 

that emissions from the source pose an 

imminent danger to human health or 

safety or an immediate threat of 

substantial harm to the environment. 

In addition, as stated in Vermont’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal under the 

discussion of public notification 

(Element J), Vermont posts near realtime air quality data, air quality 

predictions and a record of historical 

data on the VT DEC website and 

distributes air quality alerts by email to 

many parties, including the media. 

Alerts include information about the 

health implications of elevated 

pollutant levels and list actions to 

reduce emissions and to reduce the 

public’s exposure. In addition, daily 

forecasted fine particle levels are also 

made available on the internet through 

the EPA AirNow and EnviroFlash 

systems. Information regarding these 

two systems is available on EPA’s 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30607 

website at www.airnow.gov. Notices are 

sent out to EnviroFlash participants 

when levels are forecast to exceed the 

current 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 

EPA proposes that Vermont has met 

the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for section 110(a)(2)(G) 

with respect to contingency plans for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

This section requires that a state’s SIP 

provide for revision from time to time 

as may be necessary to take account of 

changes in the NAAQS or availability of 

improved methods for attaining the 

NAAQS and whenever the EPA finds 

that the SIP is substantially inadequate. 

To address this requirement, Vermont’s 

infrastructure submittal references 10 

V.S.A § 554, which provides the 

Secretary of Vermont ANR with the 

power to ‘‘[p]repare and develop a 

comprehensive plan or plans for the 

prevention, abatement and control of air 

pollution in this state’’ and to ‘‘[a]dopt, 

amend and repeal rules, implementing 

the provisions’’ of Vermont’s air 

pollution control laws set forth in 10 

V.S.A. chapter 23. EPA approved 10 

V.S.A. § 554 on June 27, 2017 (82 FR 

29005). EPA proposes that Vermont has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect 

to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment 

Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part 

D 

The CAA requires that each plan or 

plan revision for an area designated as 

a nonattainment area meet the 

applicable requirements of part D of the 

CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment 

areas. EPA has determined that section 

110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the 

infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA 

takes action on part D attainment plans 

through separate processes. 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Visibility Protection 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA 

requires that each SIP ‘‘meet the 

applicable requirements of section 121 

of this title (relating to consultation), 

section 127 of this title (relating to 

public notification), and part C of this 

subchapter (relating to PSD of air 

quality and visibility protection).’’ The 

evaluation of the submission from 

Vermont with respect to these 

requirements is described below. 

Sub-Element 1: Consultation With 

Government Officials 

Pursuant to CAA section 121, a state 

must provide a satisfactory process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) in 

carrying out its NAAQS implementation 

requirements. 

Vermont’s 10 V.S.A § 554 specifies 

that the Secretary of Vermont ANR shall 

have the power to ‘‘[a]dvise, consult, 

contract and cooperate with other 

agencies of the state, local governments, 

industries, other states, interstate or 

interlocal agencies, and the federal 

government, and with interested 

persons or groups.’’ EPA approved 10 

V.S.A. § 554 on June 27, 2017 (82 FR 

29005). In addition, VT APCR § 5– 

501(7)(c) requires VT ANR to provide 

notice to local governments and federal 

land managers of a determination by 

ANR to issue a draft PSD permit for a 

major stationary source or major 

modification. On August 1, 2016 (81 FR 

50342), EPA approved VT APCR § 5– 

501(7)(c) into Vermont’s SIP. Therefore, 

EPA proposes that Vermont has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: Public Notification 

Pursuant to CAA section 127, states 

must notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area, advise the public 

of health hazards associated with 

exceedances, and enhance public 

awareness of measures that can be taken 

to prevent exceedances and of ways in 

which the public can participate in 

regulatory and other efforts to improve 

air quality. 

Vermont’s 10 V.S.A § 554 authorizes 

the Secretary of Vermont ANR to 

‘‘[c]ollect and disseminate information 

and conduct educational and training 

programs relating to air contamination 

and air pollution.’’ In addition, the VT 

DEC Air Quality and Climate Division 

website includes near real-time air 

quality data, and a record of historical 

data. Air quality forecasts are 

distributed daily via email to interested 

parties. Air quality alerts are sent by 

email to a large number of affected 

parties, including the media. Alerts 

include information about the health 

implications of elevated pollutant levels 

and list actions to reduce emissions and 

to reduce the public’s exposure. Also, 

Air Quality Data Summaries of the 

year’s air quality monitoring results are 

issued annually and posted on the VT 

DEC Air Quality and Climate Division 

website. Vermont is also an active 

partner in EPA’s AirNow and 

EnviroFlash air quality alert programs. 

EPA proposes that Vermont has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: PSD 

EPA has already discussed Vermont’s 

PSD program in the context of 

infrastructure SIPs in the paragraphs 

addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and determined that it 

satisfies the requirements of EPA’s PSD 

implementation rules. Therefore, the 

SIP also satisfies the PSD sub-element of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

states are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C of the CAA (which 

includes sections 169A and 169B). In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, as 

noted in EPA’s 2013 guidance, we find 

that there is no new visibility obligation 

‘‘triggered’’ under section 110(a)(2)(J) 

when a new NAAQS becomes effective. 

In other words, the visibility protection 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are 

not germane to infrastructure SIPs for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Based on the above analysis, EPA 

proposes that Vermont has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act 

requires that a SIP provide for the 

performance of such air quality 

modeling as the EPA Administrator may 

prescribe for the purpose of predicting 

the effect on ambient air quality of any 

emissions of any air pollutant for which 

EPA has established a NAAQS, and the 

submission, upon request, of data 

related to such air quality modeling. 

EPA has published modeling guidelines 

at 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, for 

predicting the effects of emissions of 

criteria pollutants on ambient air 

quality. EPA also recommends in the 

2013 Guidance that, to meet section 

110(a)(2)(K), a state submit or reference 

the statutory or regulatory provisions 

that provide the air agency with the 

authority to conduct such air quality 

modeling and to provide such modeling 

data to EPA upon request. See 2013 

Guidance at 55. 

In its submittal, Vermont cites to VT 

APCR § 5–406, Required Air Modeling, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30608 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

which authorizes ‘‘[t]he Air Pollution 

Control Officer [to] require the owner or 

operator of any proposed air 

contaminant source . . . to conduct . . . 

air quality modeling and to submit an 

air quality impact evaluation to 

demonstrate that operation of the 

proposed source . . . will not directly 

or indirectly result in a violation of any 

ambient air quality standard, interfere 

with the attainment of any ambient air 

quality standard, or violate any 

applicable prevention of significant 

deterioration increment . . . .’’ 

Vermont reviews the potential impact of 

such sources consistent with EPA’s 

‘‘Guidelines on Air Quality Models’’ at 

40 CFR part 51, appendix W. See VT 

APCR § 5–406(2). Vermont also cites to 

VT APCR § 5–502, Major Stationary 

Sources and Major Modifications, which 

requires the submittal of an air quality 

impact evaluation or air quality 

modeling to ANR to demonstrate 

impacts of new and modified major 

sources, in accordance with VT APCR 

§ 5–406. The modeling data are sent to 

EPA along with the draft major permit. 

As a result, the SIP provides for such air 

quality modeling as the Administrator 

has prescribed and for the submission, 

upon request, of data related to such 

modeling. 

The state also collaborates with the 

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 

and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air 

Management Association and EPA in 

order to perform large-scale urban air 

shed modeling for ozone and PM, if 

necessary. EPA proposes that Vermont 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) 

with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees 

This section requires SIPs to mandate 

that each major stationary source pay 

permitting fees to cover the costs of 

reviewing, approving, implementing, 

and enforcing a permit. 

Vermont implements and operates a 

Title V permit program. See Subchapter 

X of VT APCR, which was approved by 

EPA on November 29, 2001 (66 FR 

59535). To gain this approval, Vermont 

demonstrated the ability to collect 

sufficient fees to run the program. 

Vermont also notes in its submittals that 

the costs of all CAA permitting, 

implementation, and enforcement for 

new or modified sources are covered by 

Title V fees, and that Vermont state law 

provides for the assessment of 

application fees from air emissions 

sources for permits for the construction 

or modification of air contaminant 

sources, and sets forth permit fees. See 

10 V.S.A § 556, 3 V.S.A § 2822(j). 

EPA proposes that Vermont has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/ 

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

To satisfy Element M, states must 

provide for consultation with, and 

participation by, local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

Vermont’s infrastructure submittal 

references 10 V.S.A § 554, which was 

approved into the VT SIP on June 27, 

2017 (82 FR 29005). This statute 

authorizes the Secretary of Vermont 

ANR to ‘‘[a]dvise, consult, contract and 

cooperate with other agencies of the 

state, local governments, industries, 

other states, interstate or interlocal 

agencies, and the federal government, 

and with interested persons or groups.’’ 

In addition, VT APCR § 5–501(7) 

provides for notification to local 

officials and agencies about the 

opportunity for participating in 

permitting determinations for the 

construction or modification of major 

sources. EPA proposes that Vermont has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

elements of the infrastructure SIP 

submitted by Vermont on October 31, 

2017 for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Specifically, EPA’s proposed action 

regarding each infrastructure SIP 

requirement is contained in Table 1 

below. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED ACTION ON VERMONT’S INFRASTRUCTURE SIP SUBMITTAL FOR THE 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Element 2012 PM2.5

(A): Emission limits and other control measures ................................................................................................................................ A 

(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system .......................................................................................................................... A 

(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures ................................................................................................................................................... A 

(C)2: PSD program for major sources and major modifications ......................................................................................................... A 

(C)3: PSD program for minor sources and minor modifications ......................................................................................................... A 

(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS ......................................................................................... A 

(D)2: PSD ............................................................................................................................................................................................ A 

(D)3: Visibility Protection ..................................................................................................................................................................... A 

(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement ................................................................................................................................................... A 

(D)5: International Pollution Abatement .............................................................................................................................................. A 

(E)1: Adequate resources .................................................................................................................................................................... A 

(E)2: State boards ............................................................................................................................................................................... A 

(E)3: Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies .............................................................................................................. NA 

(F): Stationary source monitoring system ........................................................................................................................................... A 

(G): Emergency power ........................................................................................................................................................................ A 

(H): Future SIP revisions ..................................................................................................................................................................... A 

(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D .............................................................................................................. + 

(J)1: Consultation with government officials ........................................................................................................................................ A 

(J)2: Public notification ........................................................................................................................................................................ A 

(J)3: PSD ............................................................................................................................................................................................. A 

(J)4: Visibility protection ....................................................................................................................................................................... + 

(K): Air quality modeling and data ....................................................................................................................................................... A 

(L): Permitting fees .............................................................................................................................................................................. A 

(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities ............................................................................................................. A 

In the above table, the key is as follows: A, Approve; NA, Not applicable; +, Not germane to infrastructure SIPs. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30609 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this proposal or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

EPA takes final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

comments to this proposed rule by 

following the instructions listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register. 

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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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. 

Dated: June 22, 2018. 

Alexandra Dunn, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14068 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0626; FRL–9980–18– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; 

Attainment Plan for Sullivan County 

SO2 Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC), to EPA on May 

12, 2017, for attaining the 2010 1-hour 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

for the Sullivan County SO2

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Sullivan County Area’’ or 

‘‘Area’’). The Sullivan County Area is 

comprised of a portion of Sullivan 

County in Tennessee surrounding the 

Eastman Chemical Company (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘Eastman’’). This plan 

(herein called a ‘‘nonattainment plan or 

SIP’’ or ‘‘attainment plan or SIP’’) 

includes Tennessee’s attainment 

demonstration and other elements 

required under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act). In addition to an attainment 

demonstration, the plan addresses the 

requirement for meeting reasonable 

further progress (RFP) toward 

attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably 

available control measures and 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACM/RACT), base-year and 

projection-year emissions inventories, 

enforceable emissions limitations and 

control measures, and contingency 

measures. EPA proposes to conclude 

that Tennessee has appropriately 

demonstrated that the plan’s provisions 

provide for attainment of the 2010 1- 

hour primary SO2 NAAQS in the 

Sullivan County Area and that the plan 

meets the other applicable requirements 

under the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2017–0626 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. 

Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management 

Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Akers can be 

reached via telephone at (404) 562–9089 

or via electronic mail at akers.brad@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Requirement for Tennessee to Submit an 

SO2 Attainment Plan for the Sullivan 

County Area 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS