11914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

17The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is 

located within the South Carolina. Generally, SIPs 

do not apply in Indian country throughout the 

United States, however, for purposes of the Catawba 

Indian Nation Reservation in Rock Hill, the South 

Carolina SIP does apply within the Reservation 

pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement 

Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120 (providing that ‘‘all 

state and local environmental laws and regulations 

apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and 

Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant 

state and local agencies and authorities.’’) 

Policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA 

complies with this Executive Order 

through the process of tribal 

consultation. With respect to today’s 

action, EPA has offered the Catawba 

Indian Nation two opportunities to 

consult.17 First, in an email dated 

October 21, 2010, EPA extended the 

Catawba Indian Nation an opportunity 

to consult, however, the Tribe declined 

to consult with EPA at that time. Due to 

the passage of time between the initial 

offer of consultation and today’s 

proposed action, EPA provided the 

Catawba Indian Nation a second 

opportunity to consult on the South 

Carolina Regional Haze SIP revision on 

February 1, 2012. In an email dated 

February 8, 2012, the Catawba Indian 

Nation stated that no consultation on 

this pending action was needed by the 

Tribe. Further, EPA has no information 

to suggest that today’s action will 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

existing technical standards when 

developing a new regulation. To comply 

with NTTAA, EPA must consider and 

use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ 

(VCS) if available and applicable when 

developing programs and policies 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4680 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0689; A–1–FRL– 

9638–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Vermont; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

a revision to the Vermont State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Vermont Department of 

Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) 

on August 26, 2009, with a 

supplemental submittal on January 3, 

2012, that addresses regional haze for 

the first planning period from 2008 

through 2018. This revision addresses 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA’s rules that require 

States to prevent any future, and remedy 

any existing, manmade impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2009–0689 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0631,’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2009– 

0689. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at www.

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit through www.regulations.

gov, or email, information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected. The www.regulations.gov 

Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11915 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 

69122, November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). Although States and Tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager’’ (FLM). (42 U.S.C. 7602(i)). When we use 

the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the www.

regulations.gov index. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, 

MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 

you contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the State 

submittal are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Air 

Pollution Control Division, Agency of 

Natural Resources, Building 3 South, 

103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT 

05676. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, email 

mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed 

action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Background Information 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

II. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Vermont’s 

regional haze SIP submittal? 

A. Vermont’s Affected Class I Area 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to 

Visibility Impairments 

2. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls 

3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act 

Factors in the Reasonable Progress 

Analysis 

D. BART 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling to Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Meeting the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ 

4. Additional Considerations for the LTS 

F. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

the EPA. 

I. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in 

some cases, ammonia and volatile 

organic compounds). Fine particle 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust), which 

also impair visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the Western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without manmade air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715, 

(July 1, 1999). 

B. Background Information 

In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 1 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI). See 45 FR 80084 

(Dec. 2,1980). These regulations 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11916 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

represented the first phase in addressing 

visibility impairment. EPA deferred 

action on regional haze that emanates 

from a variety of sources until 

monitoring, modeling and scientific 

knowledge about the relationships 

between pollutants and visibility 

impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. 

The Regional Haze Rule revised the 

existing visibility regulations to 

integrate into the regulation provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

and established a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. The requirements for regional 

haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309, are included in EPA’s visibility 

protection regulations at 40 CFR 

51.300–309. Some of the main elements 

of the regional haze requirements are 

summarized in Section II. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 States, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 

Forty CFR 51.308(b) requires States to 

submit the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. On January 15, 2009, EPA found 

that 37 States, the District of Columbia 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands failed to 

submit this required implementation 

plan. See 74 FR 2392, (Jan. 15, 2009). In 

particular, EPA found that Vermont 

failed to submit a plan that met the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. See 74 

FR 2393. On August 26, 2009, VT DEC 

submitted revisions to the Vermont SIP 

to address regional haze as required by 

40 CFR 51.308. Supplemental 

documentation was submitted on 

January 3, 2012. EPA has reviewed 

Vermont’s submittal and proposes to 

find that it is consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 outlined 

in Section II. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

States, tribal governments, and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, States need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the States and 

Tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their States and Tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of PM2.5 and other pollutants leading to 

regional haze. 

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 

Union (MANE–VU) RPO is a 

collaborative effort of State 

governments, Tribal governments, and 

various federal agencies established to 

initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the Northeastern 

United States. Member State and Tribal 

governments include: Connecticut, 

Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, 

Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

II. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require States 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 

determined by measuring the visual 

range (or deciview), which is the 

greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, 

at which a dark object can be viewed 

against the sky. The deciview is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility, because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.2

The deciview is used in expressing 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 

(which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by manmade air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air 

pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program and as 

part of the process for determining 

reasonable progress, States must 

calculate the degree of existing visibility 

impairment at each Class I area within 

the State at the time of each regional 

haze SIP submittal and periodically 

review progress every five years midway 

through each 10-year planning period. 

To do this, the RHR requires States to 

determine the degree of impairment (in 

deciviews) for the average of the 20 

percent least impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 

percent most impaired (‘‘worst’’) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of their Class I areas. In 

addition, States must also develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purposes of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. EPA has 

provided guidance to States regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural, and 

current visibility conditions in 

documents titled, Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility conditions 

under the Regional Haze Rule, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11917 

3The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005, 

available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/

memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and 

Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003 

(EPA–454/B–03–004, available at www.

epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

impairment for the 20 percent least 

impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days at the time the regional 

haze program was established. Using 

monitoring data from 2000 through 

2004, States are required to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area within the State, 

based on the average of annual values 

over the five year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

States that establish RPGs for Class I 

areas for each (approximately) 10-year 

planning period. The RHR does not 

mandate specific milestones or rates of 

progress, but instead calls for States to 

establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions for their Class I areas. In 

setting RPGs, States must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days over the (approximately) 

10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in the CAA and in EPA’s 

RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the time necessary for compliance; (3) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

and (4) the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources. States must 

demonstrate in their SIPs how these 

factors are considered when selecting 

the RPGs for the best and worst days for 

each applicable Class I area. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s July 1, 2007 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, 

Acting Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, to EPA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10, 

entitled Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program (p. 4–2, 5–1) 

(EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance). 

In setting the RPGs, States must also 

consider the rate of progress needed to 

reach natural visibility conditions by 

2064 (referred to as the ‘‘uniform rate of 

progress’’ or the ‘‘glide path’’) and the 

emission reduction measures needed to 

achieve that rate of progress over the 10- 

year period of the SIP. The year 2064 

represents a rate of progress which 

States are to use for analytical 

comparison to the amount of progress 

they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, 

each State with one or more Class I 

areas (‘‘Class I State’’) must also consult 

with potentially ‘‘contributing States,’’ 

i.e., other nearby States with emission 

sources that may be contributing to 

visibility impairment at the Class I 

State’s areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

States to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, the CAA 

requires States to revise their SIPs to 

contain such measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards the natural visibility goal, 

including a requirement that certain 

categories of existing stationary sources 

built between 1962 and 1977 procure, 

install, and operate the ‘‘Best Available 

Retrofit Technology’’ as determined by 

the State. (CAA 169A(b)(2)a)).3 States 

are directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such sources that 

may be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Rather than requiring 

source-specific BART controls, States 

also have the flexibility to adopt an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative program as long as the 

alternative provides greater reasonable 

progress towards improving visibility 

than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist States in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

applicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts (MW), a State must use 

the approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibility 

impairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate 

matter (PM). EPA has stated that States 

should use their best judgment in 

determining whether volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH3) 

and ammonia compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

The RPOs provided air quality 

modeling to the States to help them in 

determining whether potential BART 

sources can be reasonably expected to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area. Under the 

BART Guidelines, States may select an 

exemption threshold value for their 

BART modeling, below which a BART 

eligible source would not be expected to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area. The 

State must document this exemption 

threshold value in the SIP and must 

state the basis for its selection of that 

value. Any source with emissions that 

model above the threshold value would 

be subject to a BART determination 

review. The BART Guidelines 

acknowledge varying circumstances 

affecting different Class I areas. States 

should consider the number of emission 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. Any 

exemption threshold set by the State 

should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. 

See 70 FR 39161, (July 6, 2005). 

In their SIPs, States must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11918 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

determination analyses. The term 

‘‘BART-eligible source’’ used in the 

BART Guidelines means the collection 

of individual emission units at a facility 

that together comprises the BARTeligible source. See 70 FR 39161, (July 

6, 2005). In making BART 

determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of 

the CAA requires that States consider 

the following factors: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. See 70 FR 39170, (July 6, 2005). 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a State 

has made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP, as required by CAA 

(section 169(g)(4)) and the RHR (40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to what is 

required by the RHR, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting for the BART controls on 

the source. States have the flexibility to 

choose the type of control measures 

they will use to meet the requirements 

of BART. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR 

requires that States include a LTS in 

their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation 

of all control measures a State will use 

to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS 

must include ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals’’ for all 

Class I areas within, or affected by 

emissions from, the State. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). 

When a State’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another State, the 

RHR requires the impacted State to 

coordinate with the contributing States 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, 

the contributing State must demonstrate 

that it has included in its SIP all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between States may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two States belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, States 

must describe how each of the seven 

factors listed below is taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the State for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the State’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the State 

must revise its plan to provide for 

review and revision of a coordinated 

LTS for addressing reasonably 

attributable and regional haze visibility 

impairment, and the State must submit 

the first such coordinated LTS with its 

first regional haze SIP. Future 

coordinated LTS’s, and periodic 

progress reports evaluating progress 

towards RPGs, must be submitted 

consistent with the schedule for SIP 

submission and periodic progress 

reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 

51.308(g), respectively. The periodic 

reviews of a State’s LTS must report on 

both regional haze and RAVI 

impairment and must be submitted to 

EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Forty CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the State. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance 

with this requirement may be met 

through participation in the IMPROVE 

network. The monitoring strategy is due 

with the first regional haze SIP, and it 

must be reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a State 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the State; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a State 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other States; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the State, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A State 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

Forty CFR 51.308(f) of the RHR 

requires control strategies to cover an 

initial implementation period extending 

to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 

reassessment and revision of those 

strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years 

thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must 

meet the core requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d) with the exception of BART. 

The BART provisions of 40 CFR 

51.308(e), as noted above, apply only to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11919 

4The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal (including representatives from EPA and 

the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring 

program was established in 1985 to aid the creation 

of Federal and State implementation plans for the 

protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the 

objectives of IMPROVE is to identify chemical 

species and emission sources responsible for 

existing man-made visibility impairment. The 

IMPROVE program has also been a key participant 

in visibility-related research, including the 

advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 

5The science behind the revised IMPROVE 

equation is summarized in numerous published 

papers. See, e.g., J. L. Hand & W. C. Malm, Review 

of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient 

Light Extinction Coefficients—Final Report, March 

2006 (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State 

University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the 

Atmosphere, Fort Collins, CO), available at http:// 

vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/ 

GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/ 

IMPROVEeqReview.htm; Marc Pitchford, Natural 

Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE 

Alogrithm to Natural Species Concentrations 

Estimates: Final Report of the Natural Haze Levels 

II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis 

Workgroup, Sept. 2006, available at http:// 

vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/ 

GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

the first implementation period. 

Periodic SIP revisions will assure that 

the statutory requirement of reasonable 

progress will continue to be met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that States consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

State must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

State and FLMs regarding the State’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Vermont’s 

regional haze SIP submittal? 

On August 26, 2009, VT DEC’s Office 

of Air resources submitted revisions to 

the Vermont SIP to address regional 

haze as required by EPA’s RHR, 

specifically 40 CFR 51.308. 

Supplemental documentation was 

submitted on January 3, 2012. EPA has 

reviewed Vermont’s submittal and is 

proposing to find that it is consistent 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 

as outlined in Section II. A detailed 

analysis follows. 

Vermont is responsible for developing 

a regional haze SIP which addresses 

visibility in Vermont’s Class I area, Lye 

Brook Wilderness Area. The state must 

also address Vermont’s impact on any 

other nearby Class I areas. 

A. Vermont’s Affected Class I Area 

Vermont is home to one Class I area, 

Lye Brook Wilderness Area (‘‘Lye 

Brook’’). In addition to Lye Brook, the 

MANE–VU RPO contains six other Class 

I areas in three states: Moosehorn 

Wilderness Area, Acadia National Park, 

and Roosevelt/Campobello International 

Park in Maine; Presidential Range/Dry 

River Wilderness Area and Great Gulf 

Wilderness Area in New Hampshire; 

and Brigantine Wilderness Area in New 

Jersey. 

The Vermont regional haze SIP 

establishes RPGs for visibility 

improvement at its Class I area and a 

LTS to achieve those RPGs within the 

first regional haze implementation 

period ending in 2018. In developing 

the RPGs for Lye Brook, Vermont 

considered both emission sources inside 

and outside of Vermont that may cause 

or contribute to visibility impairment in 

Vermont’s Class I area. The State also 

identified and considered emission 

sources within Vermont that may cause 

or contribute to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas in neighboring States as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The 

MANE–VU RPO worked with the State 

in developing the technical analyses 

used to make these determinations, 

including state-by-state contributions to 

visibility impairment in specific Class I 

areas, which included Lye Brook and 

those areas which may be affected by 

emissions from Vermont. This analysis 

is discussed in Section III.C. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

As required by the RHR and in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, Vermont calculated 

baseline/current and natural conditions 

for its Class I area. 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Natural background refers to visibility 

conditions that existed before human 

activities affected air quality in the 

region. The national goal, as set out in 

the Clean Air Act, is a return to natural 

visibility conditions. 

Estimates of natural visibility 

conditions are based on annual average 

concentrations of fine particle 

components. The IMPROVE 4 equation 

is a formula for estimating light 

extinction from species measured by the 

IMPROVE monitors. As documented in 

EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, 

EPA determined, with concurrence from 

the IMPROVE Steering Committee, that 

States may use a ‘‘refined approach’’ to 

the then current IMPROVE formula to 

estimate the values that characterize the 

natural visibility conditions of the Class 

I areas. The purpose of the refinement 

to the ‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to 

provide more accurate estimates of the 

various factors that affect the calculation 

of light extinction. The new IMPROVE 

equation takes into account the most 

recent review of the science 5 and 

accounts for the effect of particle size 

distribution on light extinction 

efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and organic 

carbon. It also adjusts the mass 

multiplier for organic carbon 

(particulate organic matter) by 

increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms 

are added to the equation to account for 

light extinction by sea salt and light 

absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. 

Site-specific values are used for 

Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light 

due to atmospheric gases) to account for 

the site-specific effects of elevation and 

temperature. Separate relative humidity 

enhancement factors are used for small 

and large size distributions of 

ammonium sulfate and ammonium 

nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 

remaining contributors, elemental 

carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 

soil, and coarse mass terms, do not 

change between the original and new 

IMPROVE equations. Vermont opted to 

use this refined approach, referred to as 

the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation,’’ for its 

Class I area. 

Natural visibility conditions using the 

new IMPROVE equation were calculated 

separately for each Class I area by 

MANE–VU. EPA finds that the best and 

worst 20 percent natural visibility 

values for Lye Brook, as shown in Table 

1, were calculated using the EPA 

guidelines. 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

Lye Brook does not contain an 

IMPROVE monitor. In cases where 

onsite monitoring is not available, 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) requires States to 

use the most representative monitoring 

available for the 2000–2004 period to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11920 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6CMAQ is a photochemical grid model. The 

model uses simulations of chemical reactions, 

emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, and the 

Pennsylvania State University/National Center for 

Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological 

Model to produce speciated PM2.5 concentrations. 

For more information, see www.epa.gov/asmdnerl/ 

CMAQ/cmaq_model.html. 

7See the NESCAUM Document ‘‘Regional Haze 

and Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 

States,’’ January 31, 2001. 

establish baseline visibility conditions, 

in consultation with EPA. Vermont 

used, and EPA concurs with the use of, 

2000–2004 data from the IMPROVE 

monitor at Mount Equinox for Lye 

Brook. The Mount Equinox IMPROVE 

monitor is located on a mountain ridge 

across the valley to the west of Lye 

Brook. Lye Brook is at high elevation in 

the Green Mountains and the IMPROVE 

site across the valley is at about the 

same height as Lye Brook. 

As explained in Section II.B, for the 

first regional haze SIP, baseline 

visibility conditions are the same as 

current conditions. A five-year average 

of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was 

calculated for each of the 20 percent 

worst and 20 percent best visibility days 

for Lye Brook. IMPROVE data records 

for the period 2000 to 2004 meet the 

EPA requirements for data 

completeness. See EPA’s 2003 Tracking 

Progress Guidance, p. 2–8. 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

For the Vermont Class I area, baseline 

visibility conditions on the 20 percent 

worst days is 24.4 deciviews. Natural 

visibility for this area is predicted to be 

11.7 on the 20 percent worst visibility 

days. The natural and background 

conditions for Lye Brook for both the 20 

percent worst and 20 percent best days 

are presented in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR THE LYE BROOK WILDERNESS AREA

Average for 20 

percent worst 

days (dv) 

Average for 

the 20 percent 

best days (dv) 

Natural Background Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 11.7 2.8 

Baseline Visibility Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 24.4 6.4 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

In setting the RPGs, Vermont 

considered the uniform rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (‘‘glide path’’) and 

the emission reduction measures 

needed to achieve that rate of progress 

over the period of the SIP to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in 

EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance 

document, the uniform rate of progress 

is not a presumptive target, and RPGs 

may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to 

the glide path. 

For Lye Brook, the overall visibility 

improvement necessary to reach natural 

conditions is the difference between the 

baseline visibility of 24.4 dv and natural 

background visibility of 11.7 dv, or an 

improvement of 12.7 dv for the 20 

percent worst visibility days. VT DEC 

must also ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the best 20 percent 

visibility days over the same period in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). 

Vermont’s SIP submittal presents two 

graphs, one for the 20 percent best days, 

and one for the 20 percent worst days, 

for its Class I area. Vermont constructed 

the graphs for the worst days (i.e., the 

glide path) in accordance with EPA’s 

2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by 

plotting a straight graphical line from 

the baseline level of visibility 

impairment for 2000–2004 to the level 

of natural visibility conditions in 2064. 

For the best days, the graphs include a 

horizontal, straight line spanning from 

baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 

to depict no degradation in visibility 

over the implementation period of the 

SIP. Vermont’s SIP shows that the 

State’s RPG for its Class I areas provide 

for improvement in visibility for the 20 

percent worst days over the period of 

the implementation plan and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the 20 

percent best visibility days over the 

same period in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1). 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

As a state containing a Class I area, 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1) of the RHR requires 

Vermont to develop the reasonable 

progress goals for visibility 

improvement during the first planning 

period. 

1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants 

to Visibility Impairment 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, MANE–VU 

developed emission sensitivity model 

runs using EPA’s Community Multiscale 

Air Quality (CMAQ) air quality model 6

to evaluate visibility and air quality 

impacts from various groups of 

emissions and pollutant scenarios in the 

Class I areas on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

MANE–VU region, MANE–VU’s 

contribution assessment demonstrated 

that sulfate is the major contributor to 

PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at 

Class I areas in the Northeast and MidAtlantic Region.7 Sulfate particles 

commonly account for more than 50 

percent of particle-related light 

extinction at northeastern Class I areas 

on the clearest days and for as much as, 

or more than, 80 percent on the haziest 

days. For example, at the Brigantine 

National Wildlife Refuge Class I area 

(the MANE–VU Class I area with the 

greatest visibility impairment), on the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 2000 

through 2004, sulfate accounted for 66 

percent of the particle extinction. After 

sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently 

accounts for the next largest fraction of 

light extinction. Organic carbon 

accounted for 13 percent of light 

extinction on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days for Brigantine, followed 

by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of 

light extinction. 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by MANE–VU predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

MANE–VU region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. As a 

result of the dominant role of sulfate in 

the formation of regional haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region, 

MANE–VU concluded that an effective 

emissions management approach would 

rely heavily on broad-based regional 

SO2 control efforts in the eastern United 

States. 

Through source apportionment 

modeling, MANE–VU assisted States in 

determining their contribution to the 

visibility impairment of each Class I 

area in the MANE–VU region. Vermont 

and the other MANE–VU States adopted 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11921 

8The August 2006 NESCAUM document 

‘‘Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic United States’’ has been provided 

as part of the docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

9MANE–VU modeling did not indicate 

Wisconsin’s contribution was above this threshold. 

VT DEC undertook independent modeling that 

showed Wisconsin’s contribution to Vermont’s 

visibility impairment was above this threshold. 

Therefore, Vermont requested Wisconsin join the 

interstate consultation process. 

10This report has been included as part of the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

11MANE–VU identified these 167 units based on 

source apportionment modeling using two different 

meteorological data sets. From each of the modeling 

runs, MANE–VU identified the top 100 units which 

contribute to visibility impairment. Differences in 

model output resulted in a total of 167 units being 

identified for further control. 

a weight-of-evidence approach which 

relied on several independent methods 

for assessing the contribution of 

different sources and geographic source 

regions to regional haze in the 

northeastern and mid-Atlantic portions 

of the United States. Details about each 

technique can be found in the 

NESCAUM Document Contributions to 

Regional Haze in the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic United States, August 2006 

(hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Contribution Report’’).8

The MANE–VU Class I States 

determined that any state contributing 

at least 2% of the total sulfate observed 

on the 20 percent worst visibility days 

in 2002 were contributors to visibility 

impairment at the Class I area. States 

found to contribute 2% or more of the 

sulfate at any of the MANE–VU Class I 

areas were: Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and 

Wisconsin.9

The contribution of Vermont 

emissions to the total sulfate observed 

on the 20% worst visibility days in 2002 

was determined to be less than 2%, 

therefore, not impacting the visibility in 

the Vermont Class I area, nor any other 

Class I area. 

EPA proposes to find that VT DEC has 

adequately demonstrated that emissions 

from Vermont sources do not cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I Area. 

2. Procedure for Identifying Sources to 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls 

In developing the 2018 reasonable 

progress goal, Vermont relied primarily 

upon the information and analysis 

developed by MANE–VU to meet this 

requirement. Based on the Contribution 

Report, MANE–VU focused on SO2 as 

the dominant contributor to visibility 

impairment at all MANE–VU Class I 

areas during all seasons. In addition, the 

Contribution Report found that only 25 

percent of the sulfate at the MANE–VU 

Class I areas originate in the MANE–VU 

States. Sources in the Midwest and 

Southeast regions were responsible for 

15 to 25 percent, respectively. Point 

sources dominated the inventory of SO2

emissions. Therefore, MANE–VU’s 

strategy includes additional measures to 

control sources of SO2 both within the 

MANE–VU region and in other States 

that were determined to contribute to 

regional haze at the MANE–VU Class I 

Areas. 

Based on information from the 

Contribution Report and additional 

emission inventory analysis, MANE–VU 

and Vermont identified the following 

source categories for further 

examination for reasonable controls: 

• Coal and oil-fired EGUs; 

• Point and area source industrial, 

commercial and institutional boilers; 

• Cement and Lime Kilns; 

• Heating Oil; and 

• Residential wood combustion. 

MANE–VU analyzed these sources 

categories as potential sources of 

emission reductions for making 

reasonable progress based on the ‘‘four 

statutory factors’’ according to 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(V). 

3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act 

Factors in the Reasonable Progress 

Analysis 

As discussed in Section II.C above, 

Vermont must consider the following 

factors in developing the RPGs: (1) Cost 

of compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. MANE–VU’s four factor 

analysis can be found in Assessment of 

Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze 

in MANE–VU Class I Areas, July 9, 

2007, otherwise known as the 

Reasonable Progress Report.10

Vermont and the other MANE–VU 

States reviewed the Reasonable Progress 

Report, consulted with one another 

about possible controls measures, and 

agreed to the following measures as 

recommended strategies for making 

reasonable progress: Implementation of 

the BART requirements; a 90 percent 

reduction in SO2 emissions from 167 

EGUs identified as causing the greatest 

visibility impact 11 (or other equivalent 

emission reduction); and a reduction in 

the sulfur content of fuel oil. These 

measures are collectively known as the 

MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ 

MANE–VU used model projections to 

calculate the RPG for the Class I areas 

in the MANE–VU region. Additional 

modeling details are provided in 

Section III.E.2. The projected 

improvement in visibility due to 

emission reductions expected by the 

end of the first period, 2018, is shown 

in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—PROJECTED REASONABLE PROGRESS GOAL AND UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS (URP) FOR THE VERMONT

CLASS I AREA FROM NESCAUM 2018 VISIBILITY PROJECTIONS IN DECIVIEWS

2000–2004 

baseline 

2018 

Projection URP Natural background 

Lye Brook Wilderness Area .............. 20% Worst Visibility Days ................ 24.4 20.9 21.43 11.7 

20% Best Visibility Days .................. 6.4 5.5 ........................ 2.8 

At the time of MANE–VU modeling, 

some of the other States with sources 

potentially impacting visibility in the 

Class I areas of the MANE–VU region, 

including Lye Brook Wilderness Area in 

Vermont, had not yet made final control 

determinations for BART, and thus, 

these controls were not included in the 

modeling prepared by MANE–VU and 

used by Vermont. This is a conservative 

approach because additional emission 

reductions could result from the 

application of BART controls. The 

modeling conducted by MANE–VU 

demonstrates that the 2018 control 

scenario (2018 projection) provides for 

an improvement in visibility greater 

than the uniform rate of progress for the 

Vermont Class I area for the most 

impaired days over the period of the 

implementation plan and ensures no 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11922 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

12A list of the BART-eligible sources in the 

MANE–VU area can be found in Appendix A of 

Attachment T–MANE–VU Five Factor Analysis of 

BART Eligible Sources of the Vermont SIP 

submittal. 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. 

Consistent with EPA guidance at the 

time, the MANE–VU modeling included 

reductions from the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) in estimating the RPGs for 

2018. The regional haze provisions 

specify that a state may not adopt a RPG 

that represents less visibility 

improvement than is expected to result 

from other CAA requirements during 

the implementation period. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, in estimating 

the RPGs for 2018, many States took 

into account emission reductions 

anticipated from CAIR. MANE–VU 

initially reduced emissions from highest 

impacting 167 EGUs by ninety percent. 

However, many of the units targeted for 

the 90% reduction were part of the 

CAIR program. Since the 90% reduction 

was larger, in total tons of emissions 

reduced, than the reductions expected 

from CAIR, MANE–VU added the excess 

emissions back into the inventory to 

account for trading of the emission 

credits across the modeling domain. 

This way, MANE–VU States would not 

overestimate the emission reductions or 

the related visibility improvement if 

States used the CAIR program as their 

response to the MANE–VU’s ‘‘Ask’’ of 

ninety percent reduction from the 167 

EGUs in the eastern United States. 

The RPGs for the Lye Brook Class I 

area in Vermont are based on modeled 

projections of future emissions that 

were developed using the best available 

information at the time the analysis was 

completed. While MANE–VU’s 

emission inventory used for modeling 

included estimates of future emission 

growth, projections can change as 

additional information regarding future 

conditions becomes available. It would 

be both impractical and resourceintensive to require a state to 

continually adjust the RPG every time 

an event affecting these future 

projections changed. EPA recognized 

the problems of a rigid requirement to 

meet a long-term goal based on modeled 

projections of future visibility 

conditions, and addressed the 

uncertainties associated with RPGs in 

several ways. EPA made clear in the 

RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory 

standard which must be achieved by a 

particular date. See 64 FR 35733. At the 

same time, EPA established a 

requirement for a five-year, midcourse 

review and, if necessary, correction of 

the States’ regional haze plans. See 40 

CFR 52.308(g). In particular, the RHR 

calls for a five-year progress review after 

submittal of the initial regional haze 

plan. The purpose of this progress 

review is to assess the effectiveness of 

emission management strategies in 

meeting the RPG and to provide an 

assessment of whether current 

implementation strategies are sufficient 

for the state or affected states to meet 

their RPGs. If a state concludes, based 

on its assessment, that the RPGs for a 

Class I area will not be met, the RHR 

requires the state to take appropriate 

action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h). The 

nature of the appropriate action will 

depend on the basis for the state’s 

conclusion that the current strategies are 

insufficient to meet the RPGs. In its SIP 

submittal, Vermont commits to the 

midcourse review and submitting 

revisions to the regional haze plan 

where necessary. 

The RPGs that Vermont has adopted 

are predicated on other contributing 

states achieving the EGU emission 

reductions anticipated under CAIR. 

However, Vermont’s regional haze plan 

does not rely on CAIR for Vermont’s 

appropriate contribution toward 

meeting the RPGs for the Class I area in 

Vermont or any other state. Vermont has 

demonstrated that the emission controls 

in the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’—timely 

installation of BART Controls, a 90 

percent reduction in SO2 emissions 

from EGUs and a low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy—are reasonable measures for 

the reduction of visibility impairment as 

required by EPA’s RHR. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing to approve Vermont’s RPG 

for the first regional haze planning 

period irrespective of the status of CAIR 

and irrespective of the associated issues 

regarding the adequacy of other state’s 

plans. For similar reasons, EPA believes 

the approvability of the Vermont plan is 

not affected by the status of the Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule, which was 

promulgated on August 8, 2011 at 76 FR 

48208 and stayed on December 30, 

2011. 

D. BART 

As part of developing its SIP, Vermont 

evaluated the major point sources in the 

State and determined that none meet the 

criteria (as described in Section II.D) to 

be considered BART-eligible.12 EPA 

agrees with VT DEC’s determination and 

proposes to find that there are no 

sources in Vermont which meet the 

BART eligibility criteria. 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

As described in Section II.E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of 

State-specific control measures relied on 

by the State to obtain its share of 

emission reductions to support the 

RPGs established by Vermont, New 

Hampshire, Maine, and New Jersey, the 

nearby Class I area States. Vermont’s 

LTS for the first implementation period 

addresses the emissions reductions from 

federal, State, and local controls that 

take effect in the State from the baseline 

period starting in 2002 until 2018. 

Vermont participated in the MANE–VU 

regional strategy development process 

and supported a regional approach 

towards deciding which control 

measures to pursue for regional haze, 

which was based on technical analyses 

documented in the following reports: (a) 

The Contribution Report; (b) the 

Reasonable Progress Report; (c) FiveFactor Analysis of BART–Eligible 

Sources: Survey of Options for 

Conducting BART Determinations 

(available at www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/bart-final-memo-06-28- 

07.pdf); and (d) Assessment of Control 

Technology Options for BART–Eligible 

Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, 

Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and 

Paper, and Pulp Facilities (available at 

www.nescaum.org/documents/bartcontrol-assessment.pdf). 

The LTS was developed by Vermont, 

in coordination with MANE–VU, 

identifying the emissions units within 

Vermont that are currently likely to 

have the largest impacts on visibility at 

nearby Class I areas, estimating 

emissions reductions for 2018, based on 

all controls required under federal and 

State regulations for the 2002–2018 

period, and comparing projected 

visibility improvement with the uniform 

rate of progress for the nearby Class I 

area. 

Vermont’s LTS includes measures 

needed to achieve its share of emissions 

reductions agreed upon through the 

consultation process with MANE–VU 

Class I States and includes enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals established by New 

Hampshire, Maine and New Jersey for 

their Class I areas. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The State-wide emissions inventories 

used in the regional haze technical 

analyses were developed by MARAMA 

for MANE–VU with assistance from 

Vermont. The 2018 emissions inventory 

was developed by projecting 2002 

emissions forward based on 

assumptions regarding emissions 

growth due to projected increases in 

economic activity and emission 

reductions expected from federal and 

State regulations. MANE–VU’s 

emissions inventories included 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11923 

13 Vermont’s recently enacted legislation, Title 10 

V.S.A. § 583, ‘‘Repeal of Stage II vapor recovery 

requirements,’’ repeals the DEC’s authority to 

require Stage II controls as of January 1, 2013, and 

exempts from control facilities constructed after 

May 1, 2009. In addition, Vermont’s statute states 

that ‘‘each gasoline dispensing facility shall 

decommission its Stage II vapor recovery systems, 

including below-ground components, pursuant to 

methods approved by the secretary’’ within two 

years of the Stage II requirements no longer 

applying to the individual gasoline dispensing 

facility. It should be noted, however, that the CAA 

requires states in the Ozone Transport Region, such 

as Vermont, to adopt, and submit to EPA as a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, Stage II 

controls or measures that achieve comparable 

emission reductions. Previously, Vermont’s strategy 

for addressing this requirement has been to 

implement a Stage II vapor recovery program. 

However, since Vermont statute now calls for the 

sunset of this program, the DEC will need to submit 

a SIP revision demonstrating that the state is 

achieving comparable volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emission reductions through the 

implementation of other control measures. 

Therefore, consideration of these reductions in the 

model is reasonable. 

estimates of NOX, coarse particulate 

matter (PM10), PM2.5, and SO2, VOC, and 

NH3. The BART guidelines direct States 

to exercise judgment in deciding 

whether VOC and NH3 impair visibility 

in their Class I area(s). As discussed 

further in Section III.C.1 above, MANE– 

VU demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of sulfates are the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. It 

was also determined that the total 

ammonia emissions in the MANE–VU 

region are extremely small. 

MANE–VU developed emissions 

inventories for four inventory source 

classifications: (1) Stationary point 

sources, (2) stationary area sources, (3) 

non-road mobile sources, and (4) onroad mobile sources. The New York 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation also developed an 

inventory of biogenic emissions for the 

entire MANE–VU region. Stationary 

point sources are those sources that emit 

greater than a specified tonnage per 

year, depending on the pollutant, with 

data provided at the facility level. 

Stationary area sources are those 

sources whose individual emissions are 

relatively small, but due to the large 

number of these sources, the collective 

emissions from the source category 

could be significant. Non-road mobile 

sources are equipment that can move 

but do not use the roadways. On-road 

mobile source emissions are 

automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles 

that use the roadway system. The 

emissions from these sources are 

estimated by vehicle type and road type. 

Biogenic sources are natural sources like 

trees, crops, grasses, and natural decay 

of plants. Stationary point sources 

emission data is tracked at the facility 

level. For all other source types, 

emissions are summed on the county 

level. 

There are many federal and State 

control programs being implemented 

that MANE–VU and Vermont anticipate 

will reduce emissions between the 

baseline period and 2018. Emission 

reductions from these control programs 

in the MANE–VU region were projected 

to achieve substantial visibility 

improvement by 2018 at all of the 

MANE–VU Class I areas. To assess 

emissions reductions from ongoing air 

pollution control programs, BART, and 

reasonable progress goals, MANE–VU 

developed 2018 emissions projections 

called ‘‘Best and Final.’’ The emissions 

inventory provided by the VT DEC for 

the ‘‘Best and Final’’ 2018 projections is 

based on expected control requirements. 

Vermont relied on emission 

reductions from the following ongoing 

and expected air pollution control 

programs as part of the state’s long term 

strategy. Non-EGU point source controls 

in Vermont include: Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) 

Boiler requirements; 2-year, 4-year, 7- 

year, and 10-year Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Standards; 

Combustion Turbine and Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) 

MACT; Industrial Boiler/Process Heater 

MACT; and a low sulfur fuel oil strategy 

which is further described in Section 

III.E.3. 

On July 30, 2007, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

vacated and remanded the Industrial 

Boiler MACT Rule. NRDC v. EPA, 

489F.3d 1250 (DC Cir. 2007). This 

MACT was vacated since it was directly 

affected by the vacatur and remand of 

the Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Incinerator (CISWI) definition 

rule. EPA proposed a new Industrial 

Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur 

on June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006) and 

issued a final rule on March 21, 2011 

(76 FR 15608). On May 18, 2011, EPA 

stayed the effective date of the 

Industrial Boiler MACT pending review 

by the DC Circuit or the completion of 

EPA’s reconsideration of the rule. See 

76 FR 28662. 

On December 2, 2011, EPA issued a 

proposed reconsideration of the MACT 

standards for existing and new boilers at 

major (76 FR 80598) and area (76 FR 

80532) source facilities, and for 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incinerators (76 FR 80452). On January 

9, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia vacated EPA’s stay 

of the effectiveness date of the Industrial 

Boiler MACT, reinstating the original 

effective date and therefore requiring 

compliance with the current rule in 

2014. Sierra Club v. Jackson, Civ. No. 

11–1278, slip op. (D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2012). 

Even though Vermont’s modeling is 

based on the old Industrial Boiler 

MACT limits Vermont’s modeling 

conclusions are unlikely to be affected 

because the expected reductions in SO2

and PM resulting from the vacated 

MACT rule are a relatively small 

component of the Vermont inventory 

and the expected emission reductions 

from the final MACT rule are 

comparable to those modeled. In 

addition, the new MACT rule requires 

compliance by 2014 and therefore the 

expected emission reductions will be 

achieved prior to the end of the first 

implementation period in 2018. Thus, 

EPA does not expect that differences 

between the old and revised Industrial 

Boiler MACT emission limits would 

affect the adequacy of the existing 

Vermont regional haze SIP. If there is a 

need to address discrepancies between 

projected emissions reductions from the 

old Industrial Boiler MACT and the 

Industrial Boiler MACT finalized in 

March 2011, we expect Vermont to do 

so in their 5-year progress report. 

Controls on area sources expected by 

2018 include: solvent metal cleaning 

(APC regulation 5–253.14); coating of 

miscellaneous metal parts (APC 

regulation 5–253.13); and VOC control 

measures for portable fuel containers 

(contained in EPA’s Mobile Source Air 

Toxics rule). 

Controls on mobile sources expected 

by 2018 include: Stage I vapor recovery 

systems at vehicle refueling stations 

(APC regulation 5–253.5); Stage II vapor 

recovery at gasoline dispensing facility 

with an annual gasoline throughput of 

400,000 gallons or more (APC regulation 

5–253.7) 13; Federal On-Board Refueling 

Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Rule; Federal 

Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Standards and Gasoline Sulfur 

Requirements; Federal Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Engine Emission Standards for 

Trucks and Buses; and Federal Emission 

Standards for Large Industrial SparkIgnition Engines and Recreation 

Vehicles. 

Controls on non-road sources 

expected by 2018 include the following 

federal regulations: Control of Air 

Pollution: Determination of Significance 

for Nonroad Sources and Emission 

Standards for New Nonroad 

Compression Ignition Engines at or 

above 37 kilowatts (59 FR 31306, (June 

17, 1994)); Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines 

(63 FR 56967, (Oct. 23, 1998)); Control 

of Emissions from Nonroad Large SparkIgnition Engines and Recreational 

Engines (67 FR 68241, (Nov. 8, 2002)); 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11924 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

and Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines 

and Fuels (69 FR 38958, (June 29, 

2004)). 

Tables 3 and 4 are summaries of the 

2002 baseline and 2018 estimated 

emissions inventories for Vermont. The 

2018 estimated emissions include 

emissions growth as well as emission 

reductions due to ongoing emission 

control strategies and reasonable 

progress goals. 

TABLE 3—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR VERMONT

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ................................................................................. 1,097 787 267 304 6,194 905 

Area .................................................................................. 23,265 3,028 11,065 56,131 9,848 4,087 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 17,288 20,670 483 670 934 894 

Non-Road Mobile ............................................................. 10,548 4,217 486 530 5 372 

Biogenics .......................................................................... 118,377 1,142 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................................................................... 170,574 30,024 12,300 57,634 16,981 6,258 

TABLE 4—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR VERMONT

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ................................................................................. 1,711 572 271 322 9 407 

Area .................................................................................. 26,197 3,430 7,214 22,585 14,580 2,990 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 4,072 4,744 144 145 936 82 

Non-Road Mobile ............................................................. 7,566 2,262 303 331 6 13 

Biogenics .......................................................................... 118,377 1,142 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................................................................... 157,922 12,149 7,932 23,383 15,531 3,493 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

MANE–VU performed modeling for 

the regional haze LTS for the 11 MidAtlantic and Northeast States and the 

District of Columbia. The modeling 

analysis is a complex technical 

evaluation that began with selection of 

the modeling system. MANE–VU used 

the following modeling system: 

• Meteorological Model: The FifthGeneration Pennsylvania State 

University/National Center for 

Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) 

version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic, 

prognostic meteorological model 

routinely used for urban- and regionalscale photochemical, PM2.5, and 

regional haze regulatory modeling 

studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

(SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system 

is an emissions modeling system that 

generates hourly gridded speciated 

emission inputs of mobile, non-road 

mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic 

emission sources for photochemical grid 

models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. 

• Air Quality Model: The Regional 

Model for Aerosols and Deposition 

(REMSAD) is a Eulerian grid model that 

was primarily used to determine the 

attribution of sulfate species in the 

Eastern US via the species-tagging 

scheme. 

• Air Quality Model: The California 

Puff Model (CALPUFF), version 5 is a 

non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model 

used to access the contribution of 

individual States’ emissions to sulfate 

levels at selected Class I receptor sites. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the MANE–VU region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12x12 

kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11 

MANE–VU States (Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont) and the District of 

Columbia and States adjacent to them. 

This grid is nested within a larger 

national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 

km grid cells that covers the continental 

United States, portions of Canada and 

Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and 

Pacific Oceans along the east and west 

coasts. Selection of a representative 

period of meteorology is crucial for 

evaluating baseline air quality 

conditions and projecting future 

changes in air quality due to changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis which resulted in the 

selection of the entire year of 2002 

(January 1–December 31) as the best 

period of meteorology available for 

conducting the CMAQ modeling. The 

MANE–VU States’ modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, April 

2007 (EPA–454/B–07–002, available at 

www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/ 

guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf), and 

EPA document, Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 

and Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations, August 2005 and updated 

November 2005 (EPA–454/R–05–001, 

available at www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ 

eidocs/eiguid/index.html) (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s Modeling 

Guidance’’). 

MANE–VU examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11925 

14See Appendix G—‘‘2018 Emissions from EGUs 

in the Eastern US’’ of the Vermont SIP submittal for 

a complete listing of the 167 stacks. 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

MANE–VU used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), VT DEC provided the 

appropriate supporting documentation 

for all required analyses used to 

determine the State’s LTS. The technical 

analyses and modeling used to develop 

the glide path and to support the LTS 

are consistent with EPA’s RHR, and 

interim and final EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA is proposing to find the 

MANE–VU technical modeling to 

support the LTS and determine 

visibility improvement for the uniform 

rate of progress acceptable because the 

modeling system was chosen and used 

according to EPA Modeling Guidance. 

EPA agrees with the MANE–VU model 

performance procedures and results, 

and that the CMAQ is an appropriate 

tool for the regional haze assessments 

for the Vermont LTS and regional haze 

SIP. 

3. Meeting the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ 

Vermont in cooperation with the 

MANE–VU States developed the 

MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ to provide for 

reasonable progress towards achieving 

natural visibility at the MANE–VU Class 

I areas. The ‘‘Ask’’ included: (a) Timely 

implementation of BART requirements; 

(b) a 90 percent reduction in SO2

emissions from each of the EGU stacks 

identified by MANE–VU comprising a 

total of 167 stacks; (c) adoption of a low 

sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (d) 

continued evaluation of other control 

measures to reduce SO2 and NOX

emissions. 

a. Timely Implementation of BART 

Vermont does not have any BARTeligible units identified as contributing 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. 

b. Ninety Percent Reduction in SO2

Emissions From Each of the EGU Stacks 

Identified by MANE–VU Comprising a 

Total of 167 Stacks 

MANE–VU did not identify any 

additional EGU stacks in Vermont and 

consequently did not include any 

Vermont sources on the list of 167 

stacks.14

c. Vermont Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy 

The MANE–VU low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy includes two phases. Phase I of 

the strategy requires the reduction of 

sulfur in distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by 

weight (500 parts per million (ppm)) by 

no later than 2014. Phase II requires 

reductions of sulfur in #4 residual oil to 

0.25% sulfur by weight, in #6 residual 

oil to 0.5% sulfur by weight, and a 

further reduction in the sulfur content 

of distillate oil to 15 ppm, all by 2018. 

On September 28, 2011, Vermont 

adopted revisions to Section 5–221, 

‘‘Prohibition of Potentially Polluting 

Materials in Fuel,’’ and submitted the 

revised rule to EPA as a SIP revision on 

January 3, 2012. This rule was 

previously approved into the Vermont 

SIP. See 43 FR 59496, (Dec. 21, 1978). 

The revisions to the rule added the 

following prohibition of the sale or 

purchase of residual (#4, #5, and #6) 

and distillate oil: 

(1) Beginning July 1, 2014 and ending 

June 30, 2018, a person may not sell or 

purchase No. 2 distillate oils and animal 

and vegetable fuel oils with a sulfur 

content greater than 0.05% by weight; 

(2) Beginning July 1, 2018, a person 

may not sell or purchase No. 2 distillate 

oils and animal and vegetable fuel oils 

with a sulfur content greater than 

0.0015% by weight. 

(3) Beginning July 1, 2018, a person 

may not sell or purchase No 4. residual 

oil with a sulfur content greater than 

0.25%, and 

(4) Beginning July 1, 2018, a person 

may not sell or purchase No. 5 and No. 

6 residual oils with a sulfur content 

greater than 0.5% by weight. 

The regulation allows for the 

continued use (but not sale) of fuel 

stored in Vermont that met the 

applicable sulfur content limit at the 

time the fuel was stored in Vermont. 

The regulation also allows for the use of 

a flue gas control to meet an emission 

limit comparable to the above sulfur in 

fuel oil limits. 

The regulation allows the Governor, 

by executive order, to temporarily 

suspend the implementation and 

enforcement of this section if the 

Governor determines, after consulting 

with the Secretary and commissioner of 

public service, that meeting the 

requirement is not feasible due to 

inadequate supply of the required fuel. 

In its SIP submittal for the rule, 

Vermont indicated that given the formal 

and public nature of executive orders, 

one would expect this authority would 

be used sparingly. In addition, the law 

specifically states that any suspension 

from the requirements must be 

temporary. The suspension may not be 

permanent or open-ended. EPA agrees 

that it is unlikely that this regulation 

would be suspended for any excessive 

period of time. 

Finally, Vermont’s revised regulation 

includes the appropriate recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements to ensure 

compliance with the rule. 

The emission limits in Vermont’s 

revised Section 5–221 are more 

stringent than the 2% sulfur by weight 

limit contained in Vermont’s existing 

SIP-approved rule, thus meeting the 

anti-back sliding requirements of 

section 110(l) of the CAA. Therefore, 

EPA proposes that the revised rule be 

incorporated into the Vermont SIP. 

VT DEC continues to evaluate other 

control measures to reduce SO2 and 

NOX emissions. EPA proposes to find 

that Vermont has sufficiently addressed 

the applicable provisions of the MANE– 

VU ‘‘Ask’’ and has therefore 

demonstrated a plan to achieve 

reasonable progress toward natural 

visibility. 

4. Additional Considerations for the 

LTS 

Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires 

States to consider the following factors 

in developing the long term strategy: 

a. Emission reductions due to ongoing 

air pollution control programs, 

including measures to address 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment; 

b. Measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; 

c. Emission limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goal; 

d. Source retirement and replacement 

schedules; 

e. Smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry management 

purposes including plans as currently 

exist within the State for these 

purposes; 

f. Enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures; and 

g. The anticipated net effect on 

visibility due to projected changes in 

point area, and mobile source emissions 

over the period addressed by the long 

term strategy. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11926 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

15This document has been provided as part of the 

docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

16This document has been included as part of the 

docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

17Projected visibility improvements for each 

MANE–VU Class I area can be found in the 

NESCAUM document dated May 13, 2008, ‘‘2018 

Visibility Projections’’ (www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/2018-visibility-projections-final-05-13- 

08.pdf/). 

a. Emission Reductions Including RAVI 

No source in Vermont has been 

identified as subject to RAVI. A list of 

Vermont’s ongoing air pollution control 

programs is included in Section III.E.1. 

b. Construction Activities 

The Regional Haze Rule requires 

Vermont to consider measures to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities on regional haze. MANE–VU’s 

consideration of control measures for 

construction activities is documented in 

‘‘Technical Support Document on 

Measures to Mitigate the Visibility 

Impacts of Construction Activities in the 

MANE–VU Region, Draft, October 20, 

2006.’’ 15

The construction industry is already 

subject to requirements for controlling 

pollutants that contribute to visibility 

impairment. For example, federal 

regulations require the reduction of SO2

emissions from construction vehicles. 

MANE–VU’s Contribution Report 

found that, from a regional haze 

perspective, crustal material generally 

does not play a major role. On the 20 

percent best-visibility days during the 

2000–2004 baseline period, crustal 

material accounted for 6 to 11 percent 

of the particle-related light extinction at 

the MANE–VU Class I Areas. On the 20 

percent worst-visibility days, however, 

the contribution was reduced to 2 to 3 

percent. Furthermore, the crustal 

fraction is largely made up of pollutants 

of natural origin (e.g., soil or sea salt) 

that are not targeted under the Regional 

Haze Rule. Nevertheless, the crustal 

fraction at any given location can be 

heavily influenced by the proximity of 

construction activities; and construction 

activities occurring in the immediate 

vicinity of MANE–VU Class I area could 

have a noticeable effect on visibility. 

For this regional haze SIP, Vermont 

concluded that its current regulations 

are currently sufficient to mitigate the 

impacts of construction activities. Any 

future deliberations on potential control 

measures for construction activities and 

the possible implementation will be 

documented in the first regional haze 

SIP progress report. EPA proposes to 

find that Vermont has adequately 

addressed measures to mitigate the 

impacts of construction activities. 

c. Emission Limitations and Schedules 

for Compliance To Achieve the RPG 

In addition to the existing CAA 

control requirements discussed in 

Section III.E.1, Vermont has adopted a 

low sulfur fuel oil strategy consistent 

with the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ The 

compliance date for Phase I will be in 

2014 and the compliance date for Phase 

II will be in 2018. EPA is proposing to 

determine that Vermont has 

satisfactorily considered emissions 

limitations and schedules as part of the 

LTS. 

d. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedule 

Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) of the 

Regional Haze Rule requires Vermont to 

consider source retirement and 

replacement schedules in developing 

the long term strategy. Source 

retirement and replacement were 

considered in developing the 2018 

emission inventory. EPA is proposing to 

determine that Vermont has 

satisfactorily considered source 

retirement and replacement schedules 

as part of the LTS. 

e. Smoke Management Techniques 

The Regional Haze Rule requires 

States to consider smoke management 

techniques related to agricultural and 

forestry management in developing the 

long-term strategy. MANE–VU’s 

analysis of smoke management in the 

context of regional haze is documented 

in ‘‘Technical Support Document on 

Agricultural and Smoke Management in 

the MANE–VU Region, September 1, 

2006.’’ 16

Vermont does not currently have a 

Smoke Management Program (SMP). 

However, SMPs are required only when 

smoke impacts from fires managed for 

resources benefits contribute 

significantly to regional haze. The 

emissions inventory presented in the 

above-cited document indicates that 

agricultural, managed and prescribed 

burning emissions are very minor; the 

inventory estimates that, in Vermont, 

those emissions from those source 

categories totaled 4.6 tons of PM10, 4.0 

tons of PM2.5, and < 0.1 ton of SO2 in 

2002. 

Source apportionment results show 

that wood smoke is a moderate 

contributor to visibility impairment at 

some Class I areas in the MANE–VU 

region; however, smoke is not a large 

contributor to haze in MANE–VU Class 

I areas on either the 20% best or 20% 

worst visibility days. Moreover, most of 

wood smoke is attributable to 

residential wood combustion. Therefore, 

it is unlikely that fires for agricultural or 

forestry management cause large 

impacts on visibility in any of the Class 

I areas in the MANE–VU region. On rare 

occasions, smoke from major fires 

degrades air quality and visibility in the 

MANE–VU area. However, these fires 

are generally unwanted wildfires that 

are not subject to SMPs. EPA proposes 

to approve Vermont’s decision that an 

Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Plan to address visibility 

impairment is not required at this time. 

f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations 

and Control Measures 

All emission limitations included as 

part of Vermont’s Regional Haze SIP are 

either currently federally enforceable or 

will become federally enforceable if this 

action is finalized as proposed. EPA is 

proposing to find that Vermont has 

adequately addressed the enforceability 

of emission limitations and control 

measures. 

g. The Anticipated Net Effect on 

Visibility 

MANE–VU used the best and final 

emission inventory to model progress 

expected toward the goal of natural 

visibility conditions for the first regional 

haze planning period. All of the MANE– 

VU Class I areas are expected to achieve 

greater progress toward the natural 

visibility goal than the uniform rate of 

progress, or the progress expected by 

extrapolating a trend line from current 

visibility conditions to natural visibility 

conditions.17

In summary, EPA is proposing to find 

that Vermont has adequately addressed 

the LTS regional haze requirements. 

F. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU 

State Air Directors adopted the InterRPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation 

Framework that documented the 

consultation process within the context 

of regional phase planning, and was 

intended to create greater certainty and 

understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU 

States held ten consultation meetings 

and/or conference calls from March 1, 

2007 through March 21, 2008. In 

addition to MANE–VU members 

attending these meetings and conference 

calls, participants from the Visibility 

Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

RPO, Midwest RPO, and the relevant 

Federal Land Managers were also in 

attendance. In addition to the 

conference calls and meeting, the FLMs 

were given the opportunity to review 

and comment on each of the technical 

documents developed by MANE–VU. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11927 

On December 22, 2008, Vermont 

submitted a draft Regional Haze SIP to 

the relevant FLMs for review and 

comment pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(2). The FLMs provided 

comments on the draft Regional Haze 

SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(3). The comments received 

from the FLMs were addressed and 

incorporated in Vermont’s SIP revision. 

Most of the comments were requests for 

additional detail as to various aspects of 

the SIP. These comments and Vermont’s 

response to comments can be found in 

the docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

On January 15, 2009, Vermont 

proposed its Regional Haze SIP for 

public hearing and public comment. No 

public comments or requests for a 

hearing were received. To address the 

requirement for continuing consultation 

procedures with the FLMs under 40 

CFR 51.308(i)(4), Vermont commits in 

their SIP to ongoing consultation with 

the FLMs on emission strategies, major 

new source permits, assessments or 

rulemaking concerning sources 

identified as probable contributors to 

visibility impairment, any changes to 

the monitoring strategy, work on the 

periodic revisions to the SIP, and 

ongoing communications regarding 

visibility impairment. 

EPA is proposing to find that Vermont 

has addressed the requirements for 

consultation with States impacting 

Vermont’s Class I areas and with the 

Federal Land Managers. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional 

Haze Rule requires a monitoring strategy 

for measuring, characterizing, and 

reporting regional haze visibility 

impairment that is representative of all 

mandatory Class I Areas within the 

State of Vermont. The monitoring 

strategy relies upon participation in the 

IMPROVE network. 

The State of Vermont participates in 

the IMPROVE network, and will 

evaluate the monitoring network 

periodically and make those changes 

needed to be able to assess whether 

reasonable progress goals are being 

achieved in Vermont’s mandatory Class 

I Areas. In its SIP submittal, Vermont is 

committing to continued support of the 

IMPROVE network for the Lye Brook 

Wilderness area. 

Forty CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) requires 

States to establish additional monitoring 

sites or equipment as needed to assess 

whether reasonable progress goals are 

being achieved toward visibility 

improvement at mandatory Class I areas. 

At this time, the current monitor is 

sufficient to make this assessment. 

In its SIP submittal, Vermont commits 

to meet the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(iv) to report to EPA 

visibility data for Vermont’s Class I Area 

annually. 

The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(vi)) requires the inclusion 

of other monitoring elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures, necessary to assess and report 

visibility. While the VT DEC has 

concluded that the current IMPROVE 

network provides sufficient data to 

adequately measure and report progress 

toward the goals set for the MANE–VU 

Class I sites, the State has also found 

additional monitoring information 

useful to assess visibility and fine 

particle pollution in the region in the 

past. Examples of these data include 

results from the MANE–VU Regional 

Aerosol Intensive Network (RAIN), 

which provides continuous, speciated 

information on rural aerosol 

characteristics and visibility parameters; 

the EPA Clean Air Status and Trends 

Network (CASTNET), which has 

provided complementary rural fine 

particle speciation data at non-class I 

sites; the EPA Speciation Trends 

Network (STN), which provides 

speciated, urban fine particle data to 

help develop a comprehensive picture 

of local and regional sources; stateoperated rural and urban speciation 

sites using IMPROVE or STN methods; 

and the Supersites program, which has 

provided information through special 

studies that generally expands our 

understanding of the processes that 

control fine particle formation and 

transport in the region. Vermont plans 

to continue to utilize these and other 

data—as they are available and fiscal 

realities allow—to improve their 

understanding of visibility impairment 

and to document progress toward the 

reasonable progress goals under the 

Regional Haze Rule. 

H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

Consistent with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g), Vermont has 

committed to submitting a report on 

reasonable progress (in the form of a SIP 

revision) to the EPA every five years 

following the initial submittal of its 

regional haze SIP. The reasonable 

progress report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the RPGs for the 

MANE–VU Class I areas, located in 

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and 

New Jersey. 

Forty CFR 51.308(f) requires the VT 

DEC to submit periodic revisions to its 

Regional Haze SIP by July 31, 2018, and 

every ten years thereafter. VT DEC 

acknowledges and agrees to comply 

with this schedule. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v), 

VT DEC will also make periodic updates 

to the Vermont emissions inventory. VT 

DEC plans to complete these updates to 

coincide with the progress reports. 

Actual emissions will be compared to 

projected modeled emissions in the 

progress reports. 

Lastly, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), 

VT DEC will submit a determination of 

adequacy of its regional haze SIP 

revision whenever a progress report is 

submitted. Vermont’s regional haze SIP 

states that, depending on the findings of 

its five-year review, Vermont will take 

one or more of the following actions at 

that time, whichever actions are 

appropriate or necessary: 

• If Vermont determines that the 

existing SIP requires no further 

substantive revision in order to achieve 

established goals for visibility 

improvement and emissions reductions, 

VT DEC will provide to the EPA 

Administrator a negative declaration 

that further revision of the existing plan 

is not needed. 

• If Vermont determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in one or more other State(s) 

which participated in the regional 

planning process, Vermont will provide 

notification to the EPA Administrator 

and to those other State(s). Vermont will 

also collaborate with the other State(s) 

through the regional planning process 

for the purpose of developing additional 

strategies to address any such 

deficiencies in Vermont’s plan. 

• If Vermont determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in another country, Vermont 

will provide notification, along with 

available information, to the EPA 

Administrator. 

• If Vermont determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources within the State, Vermont will 

revise its SIP to address the plan’s 

deficiencies within one year from this 

determination. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Vermont’s August 26, 2009 SIP revision 

and supplemental submittal on January 

3, 2012, as meeting the applicable 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule 

found in 40 CFR 51.308. In addition, 

EPA is proposing to approve Vermont’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11928 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

revised Section 5–221 ‘‘Prohibition of 

Potentially Polluting Materials in Fuel,’’ 

and incorporate this regulation into the 

Vermont SIP. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 13, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4683 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0059; FRL–9638–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the Wisconsin State Implementation 

Plan addressing regional haze for the 

first implementation period. Wisconsin 

submitted its regional haze plan on 

January 18, 2012. The Wisconsin 

regional haze plan addresses Clean Air 

Act (CAA) and Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) requirements to remedy any 

existing and prevent future 

anthropogenic visibility impairment at 

mandatory Class I areas, notably 

including establishing limits requiring 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) for the Georgia-Pacific facility in 

Green Bay. We are proposing to approve 

fully the Wisconsin regional haze plan. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0059, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0059. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional instructions 

on submitting comments, go to section 

I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS