38834 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

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)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. 2On May 22, 2012, EPA approved Vermont’s 

August 26, 2009 regional haze SIP to address the 

first implementation period for regional haze. See 

77 FR 30212. 3Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic United States, August 2006 http:// 

www.nescaum.org/documents/contributions-toregional-haze-in-the-northeast-and-mid-atlanticunited-states/mane-vu_haze_contribution_

asessment-2006-0831.pdf/. 

Rule title State effective date EPA effective 

date Final rule citation, date Comments 

*******

XX. Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

the 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Submitted: 12/20/2013 and 

01/25/2016.

8/16/2017 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the 

document begins].

Excluding 110(D)(i)(I), interstate transport for the 2010 

SO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS which will be acted 

on separately. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17221 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2016–0626; FRL–9966–37– 

Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Regional 

Haze Five-Year Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving Vermont’s 

regional haze progress report, submitted 

on February 29, 2016 as a revision to its 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Vermont’s SIP revision addresses 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and EPA’s rules that require states to 

submit periodic reports describing the 

progress toward reasonable progress 

goals (RPGs) established for regional 

haze and a determination of adequacy of 

the State’s existing regional haze SIP. 

EPA is approving Vermont’s progress 

report on the basis that it addresses the 

progress report and adequacy 

determination requirements for the first 

implementation period covering 

through 2018. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 16, 2017, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 15, 2017. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2016–0626 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne K. McWilliams, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912, telephone (617) 918– 

1697, facsimile (617) 918–0697, email 

mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of Vermont’s SIP 

Revision 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report 

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing 

Regional Haze Plan 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

States are required to submit a 

progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision that evaluates progress towards 

the RPGs for each mandatory Class I 

Federal area (Class I area) 1 within the 

state and each Class I area outside of the 

state which may be affected by 

emissions from within the state. See 40 

CFR 51.308(g). States are also required 

to submit, at the same time as the 

progress report, a determination of the 

adequacy of the State’s existing SIP. See 

40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress 

report is due five years after submittal 

of the initial regional haze SIP. On 

August 26, 2009, the Vermont 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (VT DEC) submitted the 

State’s first regional haze SIP in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308.2

On February 29, 2016, VT DEC 

submitted a revision to the Vermont SIP 

detailing the progress made in the first 

planning period toward implementation 

of the Long Term Strategy (LTS) 

outlined in the Vermont’s 2009 regional 

haze SIP submittal, the visibility 

improvement measured at the State’s 

one Class I area, and a determination of 

the adequacy of the State’s existing 

regional haze SIP. EPA is approving 

Vermont’s February 29, 2016 SIP 

revision on the basis that it satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

(h). 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of Vermont’s SIP 

Revision 

On February 29, 2016, Vermont 

submitted its ‘‘Regional Haze Five-Year 

Progress Report’’ (Progress Report) to 

EPA as a SIP revision. 

Vermont is home to one Class I area, 

the Lye Brook Wilderness Area (Lye 

Brook). During the regional haze 

planning process, an area-of-influence 

modeling analysis based on back 

trajectories was used to assess 

Vermont’s contribution to visibility 

impairment at Lye Brook and other 

Class I areas in other states.3 Based on 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 38835 

3Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic United States, August 2006 http:// 

www.nescaum.org/documents/contributions-toregional-haze-in-the-northeast-and-mid-atlanticunited-states/mane-vu_haze_contribution_

asessment-2006-0831.pdf/. 

4MANE–VU 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. 

5The MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ was structured around 

the finding that SO2 emissions were the dominate 

visibility impairing pollutant at the Northeastern 

Class I areas and electrical generating units 

comprised the largest SO2 emission sector. See 

‘‘Regional Haze and Visibility in the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic States,’’ January 31, 2001. 6Memorandum from NESCAUM to MANE–VU 

‘‘Overview of State and Federal Actions Relative to 

MANE–VU Asks’’ dated March 28, 2013 http://

www.nescaum.org/documents/summary-memomane-vu-asks-20130328-final.pdf/. 7The 2002, 2008, and 2011 inventories are all 

based on the respective EPA’s National Emission 

9The deciview is a measure for tracking progress 

in improving visibility. Each deciview change is an 

incremental change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. The preamble to the Regional Haze 

Rule provides additional details about the deciview 

(64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999)). 

10 2000–2011 data from LYBR1 site and 2012– 

2014 data from LYEB1 site. 

this analysis, it was determined that 

Vermont does not influence visibility 

impairment at any Class I area, 

including Lye Brook. In the 2009 

Vermont regional haze SIP, however, 

the State agreed to pursue the 

coordinated course of action agreed to 

by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 

Union (MANE–VU) 4 to assure 

reasonable progress toward preventing 

any future, and remedying any existing, 

impairment of visibility in the Class I 

areas within the MANE–VU region. 

These strategies are commonly referred 

to as the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ The 

MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ includes: a timely 

implementation of best available retrofit 

technology (BART) requirements; a 90 

percent or more reduction in sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emissions at 167 electrical 

generating units (EGUs) ‘‘stacks’’ 

identified by MANE–VU (or comparable 

alternative measures); a lower sulfur 

fuel oil strategy (with limits specified 

for each State); and continued 

evaluation of other control measures.5

Vermont is not home to any BART 

sources or targeted EGUs. However, 

Vermont has adopted a lower sulfur fuel 

oil strategy which is discussed in greater 

detail below. 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report 

This section includes EPA’s analysis 

of Vermont’s Progress Report SIP 

submittal, and an explanation of the 

basis of our approval. 

In its Progress Report, Vermont 

describes its implementation of the 

MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ for the sulfur content 

of fuel oil. Vermont adopted the lowsulfur fuel oil strategy on September 28, 

2011 in Vermont’s Air Pollution Control 

Regulations (VT APCR) Section 5– 

221(1) to take effect in two phases. The 

first phase began on July 1, 2014, 

lowering the allowable concentration of 

sulfur in No. 2 and lighter distillate 

fuels to 0.05% (500 parts per million 

(ppm)) by weight. The second phase, to 

take effect on July 1, 2018, further 

lowers the sulfur limit for No. 2 and 

lighter distillate oils to 0.0015% (15 

ppm) by weight, the sulfur limit for No. 

4 residual oil to 0.25% (2,500 ppm) by 

weight, and the sulfur limit for No. 5 

and No. 6 residual oils, heavier residual 

oils, and used oils to 0.5% (5,000 ppm) 

by weight. EPA has approved Vermont’s 

Section 5–221(1) into the Vermont SIP. 

See 77 FR 30213 (May 22, 2012). 

Vermont’s Progress Report also 

includes the status of SO2 emission 

reductions from states that affect Class 

I areas in MANE–VU relative to the 

MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ 6 Vermont consulted 

with states in the eastern United States 

that affect visibility at the Lye Brook 

Class I area, outlining how the states 

could meet the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ and 

help achieve reasonable progress for the 

Class I area in Vermont and other 

MANE–VU States. These emission 

reductions were included in the 

modeling that predicted progress toward 

meeting the RPGs for Lye Brook. EPA 

finds that Vermont’s summary of the 

status of the implementation of 

measures in its Progress Report 

adequately addresses the applicable 

provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

During the development of the 

regional haze SIP for the first planning 

period, MANE–VU and Vermont 

determined that SO2 was the greatest 

contributor to anthropogenic visibility 

impairment at the State’s Class I area. 

Therefore, the bulk of visibility 

improvement achieved in the first 

planning period was expected to result 

from reductions in SO2 emissions from 

sources inside and outside of the State. 

In its Progress Report SIP Table 7.3, 

Vermont presents data from statewide 

emissions inventories developed for the 

years 2002, 2008, 2011, and projected 

inventories for 2018 for SO2, Oxides of 

Nitrogen (NOX), Fine Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5) and Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC).7 8 Vermont’s 

emissions inventories include the 

following source sectors: point, area/ 

nonpoint, on-road, and non-road. The 

Progress Report highlights that the total 

SO2 emissions from all sectors 

decreased from 7,293 tons per year (tpy) 

in 2002 to 3,450 tpy in 2011, i.e., 

approximately a 53% reduction. The 

annual SO2 emissions projection for 

2018 is 3,493 tpy. VT DEC demonstrated 

that by 2011, Vermont had already 

achieved the SO2 emission reductions 

expected during the first regional haze 

planning period. 

EPA finds that Vermont has 

adequately addressed the provision 

under 40 CFR 51.308(g). Vermont has 

detailed the SO2 reductions from the 

2002 regional haze baseline by using the 

most recently available year of data at 

the time of the development of 

Vermont’s Progress Report, which is 

2011. 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g) also require that states with 

Class I areas within their borders 

provide information on current 

visibility conditions and the difference 

between current visibility conditions 

and baseline visibility conditions 

expressed in terms of five-year averages 

of these annual values. 

Vermont is home to one Class I area, 

the Lye Brook Wilderness Area. From 

1992 to 2012, VT DEC operated an 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

program monitor on Mt. Equinox 

(LYBR1), near the Lye Brook Wilderness 

Area. In 2012, a second IMPROVE site 

was established on Mt. Snow in Dover, 

Vermont (LYEB1) due to the planned 

discontinuation of the Mt. Equinox site. 

Monitors at both sites collected data 

concurrently for a period of nine 

months. On the 20% best and worst 

days, the two sites were found to have 

a nearly one-to-one relationship. In the 

Progress Report, VT DEC provides the 

data in deciviews (dv) 9 for the baseline 

2000–2004 five-year average visibility, 

the most recent 2010–2014 five-year 

average visibility, the 2018 RPG from 

Vermont’s 2009 regional haze SIP, and 

the calculated visibility 

improvement.10 See Table 1. 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
38836 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

11NESCAUM for MANE–VU, ‘‘Tracking Visibility 

Progress 2004–2011,’’ revised May 24, 2013. http:// 

www.nescaum.org/documents/manevu-trends2004-2011-report-final-20130430.pdf/view. 

12Mid-Atlantic Air Management Association 

(MARAMA) Regional Emission Trends Analysis for 

MANE–VU States: Technical Support Document, 

Revision 3, March 22, 2013. See the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

TABLE 1—OBSERVED VISIBILITY VS. ESTABLISHED VISIBILITY GOALS (IN DECIVIEWS) FOR LYE BROOK WILDERNESS AREA

Baseline 

2000–2004 

5-year 

average 

visibility 

(dv) 

Most recent 

2010–2014 

5-year 

average 

visibility 

(dv) 

Visibility 

improvement 

(dv) 

2018 reasonable progress 

goal 

(dv) 

Meets 2018 

progress goal? 

20% Most Impaired Days ........................................ 24.4 18.5 5.9 20.9 Yes. 

20% Least Impaired Days ....................................... 6.4 5.1 1.3 5.5 Yes. 

The baseline visibility for Lye Brook 

was 24.4 dv on the 20% most impaired 

days and 6.4 dv on the least impaired 

days. The most recent five-year average 

visibility data (2010–2014) demonstrates 

that the State has already achieved and 

surpassed the 2018 RPG for the 20% 

most impaired days (18.5 dv vs. RPG of 

20.9 dv) and ensured no visibility 

degradation for the 20% least impaired 

days for the first planning period (5.1 dv 

vs. RPG of 5.5 dv). 

EPA finds that Vermont provided the 

required information regarding visibility 

conditions to meet the applicable 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g), 

specifically providing baseline visibility 

conditions (2000–2004), current 

conditions based on the most recently 

available IMPROVE monitoring data 

(2010–2014), and a comparison with the 

RPGs. 

As discussed above, Vermont’s 

Progress Report SIP Table 7.3 presents 

data from statewide emissions 

inventories developed for the years 

2002, 2008, 2011, and projected 

inventories for 2018 for SO2, NOX, PM2.5

and VOC. From 2002 through 2011, 

Vermont’s overall area/nonpoint (the 

largest SO2 sector) emissions were 

reduced from 5,386 to 2,927 tons of SO2, 

below the 2018 projection of 2,990 tons 

SO2. For NOX, from 2002 to 2011, the 

State achieved an overall 35% reduction 

from 30,231 tons to 19,644 tons. VT DEC 

is estimating that the state will achieve 

an additional 8,000 tpy NOX reduction, 

mostly from fleet turnover in the onroad mobile sector, which would result 

in an emissions level on par with the 

approximately 11,000 tons of NOx 

projected for 2018 in Vermont’s regional 

haze SIP. VT DEC indicates that based 

on the 2011 emissions data, the State 

has already reduced VOC emissions 

below the level projected for 2018 (42% 

reduction by 2011 vs. the projected 19% 

reduction by 2018). Finally, VT DEC 

notes that PM2.5 emissions have 

increased from 2002 (11,446 tons) to 

2008 (14,355 tons) and then decreased 

in 2011 (13,406 tons). VT DEC notes that 

this fluctuation is most likely 

attributable, in part, to increased 

residential wood burning, as well as to 

changes in the emission reporting 

methodology for estimating fugitive dust 

emissions. The Vermont projection for 

PM2.5 emissions in 2018 is 7,932 tons. 

EPA finds that Vermont has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). VT 

DEC compared the most recently 

updated emission inventory data 

available at the time of the development 

of the Progress Report with the baseline 

emissions from its regional haze SIP. 

The Progress Report appropriately 

details the 2011 SO2, NOX, PM2.5, and 

VOC reductions achieved, by sector, 

thus far in the regional haze planning 

period. 

In its Progress Report, Vermont states 

that sulfates continue to be the biggest 

single contributor to regional haze at 

Lye Brook. Vermont’s emissions were 

not found to be impacting any Class I 

area. VT DEC focused its analysis on 

addressing large SO2 emissions from 

point sources outside of the state. The 

State did not find any significant 

changes in NOX and PM2.5 which might 

impede or limit progress during the first 

planning period. In addition, VT DEC 

cited the 2013 Northeast States for 

Coordinated Air Use Management 

(NESCAUM) report, discussed below, 

which indicates that all of the MANE– 

VU Class I areas are on track to meet the 

2018 visibility goals established by the 

states in their regional haze SIPs.11

EPA finds that VT DEC has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The 

emissions from Vermont were not found 

to impact any Class I area. The State 

also adequately demonstrated that there 

are no significant changes in emissions 

of SO2, PM2.5, or NOX from contributing 

states which have impeded progress in 

reducing emissions and improving 

visibility in Vermont’s Class I area, Lye 

Brook. 

In its Progress Report, VT DEC states 

that it believes that the elements and 

strategies relied on in its original 2009 

regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable 

Vermont to meet all established RPGs. 

To support this conclusion, VT DEC 

notes that 2013 SO2 emissions from all 

EGUs in the entire MANE–VU region 

are already less than the 2018 projection 

(315,675 tons vs. 365,024 tons).12 In 

addition, Vermont discusses visibility 

data from Tracking Visibility Progress, 

2004–2011, prepared by NESCAUM, 

which updated the progress at MANE– 

VU Class I areas during the five-year 

period ending in 2014. The data 

included information for the Vermont 

Class I area, between 2000 and 2014, in 

the context of short- and long-term 

visibility goals. The report indicates that 

visibility impairment on the best and 

worst days from 2000 to 2014 has 

improved at Lye Brook. Vermont notes 

the NESCAUM report indicates that all 

the MANE–VU Class I states continue to 

be on track to meet their 2018 RPGs for 

improved visibility and that further 

progress may occur through recently 

adopted or proposed regulatory 

programs. Based upon the NESCAUM 

report and visibility data, Vermont 

states in its Progress Report that 

visibility improvement at Lye Brook has 

occurred for the most impaired days and 

no degradation of visibility has occurred 

for the least impaired days. Therefore, 

Vermont finds that Lye Brook is on track 

to meet the RPGs for 2018 based on 

observed visibility improvement. 

EPA finds that Vermont has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA 

views this requirement as an assessment 

that should evaluate emissions and 

visibility trends and other readily 

available information. In its Progress 

Report, Vermont described the 

improving visibility trends using data 

from the IMPROVE network and the 

downward emissions trends in key 

pollutants in the State and the MANE– 

VU region. With a focus on SO2

emissions from upwind EGUs, Vermont 

determined that the State’s regional 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 38837 

haze SIP is sufficient for the Class I area 

within the state to meet its RPGs. 

Vermont’s visibility monitoring 

strategy relies upon participation in the 

IMPROVE network. As discussed above, 

the Mt. Equinox (LYBR1) IMPROVE 

monitor near Lye Brook was replaced by 

a second IMPROVE site established on 

Mt. Snow in Dover, Vermont (LYEB1). 

On the 20% best and worst days, the 

two sites were found to have a nearly 

one-to-one relationship. VT DEC finds 

that the Mt. Snow IMPROVE monitor is 

an appropriate replacement for the 

discontinued Mt. Equinox monitor and 

that there is no indication of a need for 

additional monitoring sites or 

equipment. 

EPA finds that Vermont has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) by 

reviewing and detailing any changes to 

the state’s visibility monitoring strategy. 

B. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

In its Progress Report SIP, Vermont 

submitted a negative declaration to EPA 

regarding the need for additional actions 

or emission reductions in Vermont 

beyond those already in place and those 

to be implemented by 2018 according to 

Vermont’s regional haze SIP. 

In its Progress Report SIP, Vermont 

determined that the existing regional 

haze SIP requires no further substantive 

revision at this time to achieve the RPGs 

for the Class I area within the state. The 

basis for the State’s negative declaration 

is the finding that visibility has 

improved at all Class I areas in the 

MANE–VU region. In addition, even 

though Vermont sources were not found 

to impact visibility in any Class I area, 

the SO2 emissions from the state’s 

sources have decreased. While NOX

emissions are still greater than the level 

previously projected for 2018, 

additional substantial NOX emission 

reductions are expected from the mobile 

sector over the next several years. 

Finally, Vermont expects the downward 

trend in SO2 emissions from EGUs in 

the other MANE–VU states to continue 

through 2018. 

EPA concludes that Vermont has 

adequately addressed the provisions 

under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the 

visibility and emission trends indicate 

that the Lye Brook Wilderness Area has 

met its RPGs for 2018. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Vermont’s regional 

haze Five-Year Progress Report SIP 

revision, submitted by VT DEC on 

February 29, 2016, as meeting the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). 

The EPA is publishing this action 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should relevant adverse comments be 

filed. This rule will be effective October 

16, 2017 without further notice unless 

the Agency receives relevant adverse 

comments by September 15, 2017. 

If the EPA receives such comments, 

then EPA will publish a notice 

withdrawing the final rule and 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. All public comments 

received will then be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. The EPA will not 

institute a second comment period on 

the proposed rule. All parties interested 

in commenting on the proposed rule 

should do so at this time. If no such 

comments are received, the public is 

advised that this rule will be effective 

on October 16, 2017 and no further 

action will be taken on the proposed 

rule. Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

IV. 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 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 action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 16, 2017. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
38838 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

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, Regional haze, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: July 24, 2017. 

Deborah A. Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart UU—Vermont 

■ 2. In § 52.2370, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry 

‘‘Vermont Regional Haze Five-Year 

Progress Report’’ at the end of the table 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.2370 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

VERMONT NON-REGULATORY

Name of non-regulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State submittal date/ 

effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Vermont Regional Haze Five-Year 

Progress Report.

Statewide ...................... Submitted 2/29/2016 ..... 8/16/2017, [insert Federal Register citation].

[FR Doc. 2017–17247 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0454; FRL–9966–41– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval: North Carolina; 

Transportation Conformity 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a portion of 

a revision to the North Carolina State 

Implementation plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of North Carolina on March 24, 

2006, for the purpose of clarifying the 

State’s transportation conformity rules 

consistent with Federal requirements. 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

October 16, 2017 without further notice, 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by September 15, 2017. If EPA receives 

such comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2017–0454 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta Ward, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can also be reached via 

electronic mail at ward.nacosta@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Purpose 

A. Call to States for Conformity SIP 

Revisions 

In the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), 

Congress recognized that actions taken 

by federal agencies could affect a State, 

Tribal, or local agency’s ability to attain 

and maintain the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). Congress 

added section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506) to 

the CAA to ensure federal agencies’ 

proposed actions conform to the 

applicable SIP, Tribal Implementation 

Plan (TIP), or Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) for attaining and maintaining 

the NAAQS. That section requires 

federal entities to find that the 

emissions from the federal action will 

conform with the purposes of the SIP, 

TIP, or FIP or not otherwise interfere 

with the State’s or Tribe’s ability to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

The CAA Amendments of 1990 

clarified and strengthened the 

provisions in section 176(c). Because 

certain provisions of section 176(c) 

apply only to highway and mass transit 

funding and approvals actions, EPA 

published two sets of regulations to 

implement section 176(c). The 

Transportation Conformity Regulations, 

(40 CFR part 51, subpart T, and 40 CFR 

part 93, subpart A) first published on 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES