Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0453-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approvals and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans:Vermont; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority and Tailoring Rule
Posted Date: 2012-08-16T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49404-49408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20140]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0453, FRL-9616-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Vermont: Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas 
Permitting Authority and Tailoring Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Vermont State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to regulation of Greenhouse Gases 
(GHGs) under Vermont's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
program. This revision was submitted by Vermont, through the Vermont 
Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC), Air Pollution 
Control Division on February 14, 2011. It is intended to align 
Vermont's regulations with EPA's ``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.'' EPA is 
proposing to approve the revision because the Agency has made the 
preliminary determination that the SIP revision, already adopted by 
Vermont as a final effective rule, is in accordance with the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or Act) and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs. 
The SIP submittal also contains proposed amendments to several other 
sections of Vermont's SIP not directly related to GHG permitting which 
EPA is not acting on at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2011-0453, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: dahl.donald@epa.govmailto:.
    3. Fax: (617) 918-0657.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0453'', 
Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square--
Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Donald Dahl, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits,

[[Page 49405]]

Toxics, and Indoor Programs 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-
2011-0453.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through 
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    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 the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 
Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post 
Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts. EPA requests that if 
at all possible, you contact the person 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 federal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical 
support document are also available for public inspection during normal 
business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency; Air Pollution 
Control Division, Agency of Natural Resources, 186 Mad River Park, 
Waitsfield, VT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Vermont 
SIP, contact Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New 
England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, 
Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, 
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Mr. Dahl's telephone number 
is (617) 918-1657; email address: dahl.donald@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing in this document?
II. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in this 
document?
    A. GHG-related Actions
    B. Vermont's Actions
III. What is EPA's analysis of Vermont's SIP revision?
    A. Greenhouse Gases
    B. Other Revisions Adopted by Vermont
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing in this document?

    On February 14, 2011, the State of Vermont submitted a formal 
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions 
establish thresholds for GHG emissions in Vermont's PSD regulations at 
the same emissions thresholds and in the same time-frames as those 
specified by EPA in the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule'' (75 FR 31514), 
hereafter referred to as the ``Tailoring Rule,'' ensuring that smaller 
GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to 
permitting requirements for GHGs that they emit. The revisions to the 
SIP clarify the applicable thresholds in the Vermont SIP, and address 
the flaw discussed in the ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas 
Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 
82536 (December 30, 2010) (the ``PSD SIP Narrowing Rule''). In today's 
action, pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve 
these revisions into the Vermont SIP.
    EPA is not proposing to take action on various other revisions to 
Vermont's state implementation plan contained in the February 14, 2011 
submittal. Those are changes to Vermont Air Pollution Control 
Regulations, Chapter 5, Sections 5-101 (changes to the definitions of 
Emergency use engine, Federal Land Manager, and Public Notice), 5-251, 
5-252, 5-401 (except for 5-401(16)), 5-402, 5-404, 5-406, 5-501, and 5-
502.

II. What is the background for the action by EPA in this document?

    This section briefly summarizes EPA's recent GHG-related actions 
that provide the background for today's proposed action. More detailed 
discussion of the background is found in the preambles for those 
actions. In particular, the background is contained in what we call the 
GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,\1\ and in the preambles to the actions 
cited therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources 
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. GHG-Related Actions

    EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the 
regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part distinct from one 
another, establish the overall framework for today's proposed action on 
the Vermont SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly 
called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or Contribute 
Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action,\2\ the ``Johnson 
Memo Reconsideration,'' \3\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,'' \4\ and 
the ``Tailoring Rule.'' Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA, 
these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from 
new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such 
regulations, when

[[Page 49406]]

they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from 
stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability 
of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA took this 
last action in the Tailoring Rule, which, more specifically, 
established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the 
applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR 
66496 (Dec. 15, 2009).
    \3\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants 
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (Apr. 2, 
2010).
    \4\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324 
(May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PSD is implemented through the SIP system. In December 2010, EPA 
promulgated several rules to implement the new GHG PSD SIP program. 
Recognizing that some states had approved SIP PSD programs that did not 
apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP call and, for some of these states, 
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).\5\ Recognizing that other states 
had approved SIP PSD programs that do apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so 
for sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 tpy of GHG, and that do 
not limit PSD applicability to GHGs to the higher thresholds in the 
Tailoring Rule, EPA issued the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. Under that 
rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the affected SIPs to the extent 
those SIPs covered GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule 
thresholds. EPA based its action primarily on the ``error correction'' 
provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Specifically, by notice dated December 13, 2010, EPA 
finalized a ``SIP Call'' that would require those states with SIPs 
that have approved PSD programs but do not authorize PSD permitting 
for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such authority. ``Action 
To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,'' 75 FR 
77698 (Dec. 13, 2010). EPA has made findings of failure to submit 
that would apply in any state unable to submit the required SIP 
revision by its deadline, and finalized FIPs for such states. See, 
e.g., ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State 
Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,'' 75 FR 
81874 (Dec. 29, 2010); ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits 
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources 
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,'' 75 FR 
82246 (Dec. 30, 2010). Because Vermont's SIP already authorizes 
Vermont to regulate GHGs once GHGs became subject to PSD 
requirements on January 2, 2011, Vermont was not subject to the 
proposed SIP Call or FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Vermont's Actions

    On July 22, 2010, Vermont provided a letter to EPA, in accordance 
with a request to all States from EPA in the Tailoring Rule, with 
confirmation that the State has the authority to regulate GHG in its 
PSD program. The letter also confirmed that current Vermont rules 
require regulating GHGs at the existing 50 tpy threshold, rather than 
at the higher thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. See the docket for 
this proposed rulemaking for a copy of Vermont's letter.
    In the SIP Narrowing Rule, published on December 30, 2010, EPA 
withdrew its approval of Vermont's SIP (among other SIPs) to the extent 
the SIP applies PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions from 
sources emitting at levels below those set in the Tailoring Rule.\6\ As 
a result, Vermont's current approved SIP provides the state with 
authority to regulate GHGs, but only at and above the Tailoring Rule 
thresholds; and requires new and modified sources to receive a federal 
PSD permit based on GHG emissions only if they emit at or above the 
Tailoring Rule thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources 
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for this SIP revision is that limiting PSD applicability 
to GHG sources to the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule is 
consistent with the SIP provisions that provide required assurances of 
adequate resources, and thereby addresses the flaw in the SIP that led 
to the SIP Narrowing Rule. Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) 
includes as a requirement for SIP approval that States provide 
``necessary assurances that the State * * * will have adequate 
personnel [and] funding * * * to carry out such [SIP].'' In the 
Tailoring Rule, EPA established higher thresholds for PSD applicability 
to GHG-emitting sources on grounds that the states generally did not 
have adequate resources to apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the 
Tailoring Rule thresholds,\7\ and no State, including Vermont, asserted 
that it did have adequate resources to do so.\8\ In the SIP Narrowing 
Rule, EPA found that the affected states, including Vermont, had a flaw 
in their SIPs at the time they submitted their PSD programs, which was 
that the applicability of the PSD programs was potentially broader than 
the resources available to them under their SIPs.\9\ Accordingly, for 
each affected state, including Vermont, EPA concluded that EPA's action 
in approving the SIP was in error, under CAA section 110(k)(6), and EPA 
rescinded its approval to the extent the PSD program applies to GHG-
emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds.\10\ EPA 
recommended that States adopt a SIP revision to incorporate the 
Tailoring Rule thresholds, thereby (i) assuring that under State law, 
only sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds would be subject 
to PSD; and (ii) avoiding confusion under the Federally approved SIP by 
clarifying that the SIP applies to only sources at or above the 
Tailoring Rule thresholds.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31517.
    \8\ SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR 82540.
    \9\ Id. at 82542.
    \10\ Id. at 82544.
    \11\ Id. at 82540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's analysis of Vermont's SIP revision?

    The regulatory revisions that VT DEC submitted on February 14, 2011 
establish thresholds for determining which stationary sources and 
modification projects become subject to permitting requirements for GHG 
emissions under Vermont's PSD program. The revisions also include 
unrelated changes to other portions of the Vermont air permitting 
regulations. Specifically, the submittal includes changes to Vermont's 
regulations at Chapter 5, Air Pollution Control, Subchapter I 
(Definitions), Subchapter II (Prohibitions), Subchapter IV (Operations 
and Procedures), and Subchapter V (Review of New Air Contaminant 
Sources).
    Vermont is currently a SIP-approved state for the PSD program. In a 
letter provided to EPA on July 22, 2010, Vermont notified EPA of its 
interpretation that the State currently has the authority to regulate 
GHGs under its PSD regulations. The current Vermont program (adopted 
prior to the promulgation of EPA's Tailoring Rule) applies to major 
stationary sources (having the potential to emit at least 50 tpy or 
more of a regulated NSR pollutant) or major modifications constructing 
in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable with respect to the 
NAAQS.
    The amendments to Subchapter I that EPA is proposing to approve 
into Vermont's SIP include: new definitions of ``Greenhouse Gases'' and 
``Subject to Regulation,'' amendments to the definition of ``Major 
Stationary Source,'' and the addition of a provision regarding 
significance levels of greenhouse gases to the definition of 
``Significant.'' EPA is also proposing to approve the classification of 
certain sources of greenhouse gas emissions as air contaminant sources 
in Subchapter IV, section 5-401(16).

A. Greenhouse Gases

    The changes to Vermont's PSD program regulations regarding 
greenhouse gases are in most respects substantively the same as the 
amendments to the federal PSD regulatory provisions in EPA's Tailoring

[[Page 49407]]

Rule. However, there are several issues that we note here.
    First, Vermont submitted as part of its SIP revision its entire 
definition of ``significant'' in Section 5-101, not just the addition 
made to address greenhouse gases. Vermont's definition of 
``significant'' in Section 5-101 departs from EPA's definition of 
``significant'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23) in two ways. On the one hand, 
Vermont provides significance levels for several pollutants (asbestos, 
mercury, beryllium, and vinyl chloride) that are not listed in the 
federal regulation. On the other hand, Vermont fails to provide 
significance levels for several pollutants (particulate matter 2.5 
microns or less in diameter, municipal waste combustor organics, 
municipal waste combustor metals, municipal waste combustor acid gases, 
and municipal solid waste landfill emissions) that are listed in the 
federal regulation. In the first case, the issue is moot because 
asbestos, mercury compounds, beryllium compounds, and vinyl chloride 
are all listed as hazardous air pollutants under Section 112(b) of the 
Clean Air Act, and Section 112(b)(6) provides that PSD does not apply 
to hazardous air pollutants listed under Section 112. In the case of 
the other pollutants, however, the situation is more complex. Vermont's 
regulation neither specifically provides significance levels for these 
pollutants (particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter, 
municipal waste combustor organics, municipal waste combustor metals, 
municipal waste combustor acid gases, and municipal solid waste 
landfill emissions) nor provides a default significance threshold of 
zero. Therefore, Vermont's regulation fails to require application of 
best available control technology for emissions of these pollutants at 
any level--even at major source levels. See Section 5-502(3)(a)(i)-(ii) 
(applying control technology requirement only to emissions that are 
``significant'').
    Despite this flaw, EPA is nonetheless proposing approval of 
Vermont's SIP revision. The revised definition adds a significance 
threshold for ``greenhouse gases,'' which does not exist in the 
currently approved SIP, and the lack of significance thresholds for 
particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter, municipal waste 
combustor organics, municipal waste combustor metals, municipal waste 
combustor acid gases, and municipal solid waste landfill emissions is a 
continuation from the currently approved SIP, not a new flaw. For that 
reason, EPA is proposing to approve Vermont's SIP revision as ``SIP 
strengthening.''
    Several lesser issues require discussion regarding EPA's proposed 
interpretation of the Vermont regulation. First, Vermont defines 
``greenhouse gases'' in Section 5-101 as ``carbon dioxide, methane, 
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur 
hexafluoride, and any other chemical or physical substance emitted into 
the air that the Secretary may reasonably anticipate to cause or 
contribute to climate change.'' This definition does not explicitly 
state whether ``greenhouse gases'' is an aggregate pollutant consisting 
of six (or more) components, cf. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(i), or six (or 
more) individual gases. However, elsewhere in Vermont's regulations, 
``greenhouse gases'' is referred to in a manner suggesting the 
aggregate interpretation. See, e.g., Section 5-101 (definition of 
``Major Stationary Source'') (referring to ``the air contaminant that 
is greenhouse gases''). Therefore, EPA proposes to interpret the 
definition of ``greenhouse gases'' in Section 5-101 as an aggregate 
pollutant.
    Second, Vermont incorporates by reference EPA's definition of 
``subject to regulation'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48).\12\ This definition 
provides that the pollutant ``greenhouse gases'' is subject to 
regulation if ``both a significant emissions increase (as calculated 
using the procedures in (a)(7)(iv) of this section) and a significant 
net emissions increase (as defined in paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(23) of 
this section) occur.'' 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(iii). This, in turn, 
incorporates two different elements of the federal PSD regulation: 
emissions increase calculation, and emissions increase netting. For 
non-greenhouse gas pollutants, Vermont uses a different emissions 
increase calculation methodology, and does not allow for netting. 
However, EPA understands that Vermont intends for its greenhouse gas 
permitting requirements to match the federal requirements, and 
consequently EPA is proposing to interpret Vermont's definition of 
``subject to regulation'' as including the calculation methodology 
specified in the federal regulations. See also VT DEC's Jan. 3, 2011 
response to comments; response No. 2 (emphasizing VT DEC's ``intent to 
have the same (and not more stringent) permitting thresholds for 
greenhouse gases in Vermont as required by federal regulations''), and 
response No. 8 (``The [VT DEC] intends for the federal netting and 
baseline calculation procedures to apply for applicability of 
permitting greenhouse gases.''). Thus, for example, an existing Vermont 
source, in determining whether a proposed modification's greenhouse gas 
emissions would be ``subject to regulation,'' would be permitted to use 
the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test of 40 CFR 
51.166(a)(7)(iv)(c), and to incorporate creditable and contemporaneous 
reductions in actual emissions in calculating the ``net emissions 
increase.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Vermont regulation actually refers to ``40 CFR 
51.166(48)(b)'' [sic]. See Section 5-101 (definition of ``Subject to 
Regulation''). We assume this is a clerical error and was intended 
to refer to Sec.  51.166(b)(48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, in light of the preceding two proposed interpretations, it 
is possible that an ambiguity may arise if Vermont adds a new component 
gas to its state-defined ``greenhouse gases'' pollutant but that 
component gas is not part of the federal ``greenhouse gases'' 
definition at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(i). In this situation, it may not be 
clear in any given context whether ``greenhouse gases'' in Vermont's 
regulations refers to ``greenhouse gases'' as defined by EPA or as 
defined by Vermont. This could be relevant if, for example, an existing 
source sought to take credit for reductions in a state-only gas when 
calculating its net emissions increase of greenhouse gases. Since 
Vermont's definition of ``subject to regulation'' in Section 5-101 
includes all of 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48), it must therefore include the 
federal definition of ``greenhouse gases'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(i). 
Therefore, EPA proposes to interpret ``greenhouse gases'' in Vermont's 
regulations as meaning greenhouse gases as defined by 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(48)(i) for purposes of the ``subject to regulation'' 
definition and any reference elsewhere in Vermont's regulations that 
specifically references the ``subject to regulation'' definition, but 
as meaning greenhouse gases as defined by Section 5-101 for all other 
purposes in Vermont's SIP.
    Finally, as noted above, the Vermont regulation in several places 
incorporates federal regulations by reference. See, e.g., Section 5-101 
(definition of ``Major Stationary Source'') (referring to ``the 
thresholds in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(i)''). However, these references do 
not specify whether the incorporation by reference is intended to be 
prospective (i.e., to incorporate the federal regulation as it may be 
amended from time to time, without need for revising the state 
regulation to accommodate federal regulatory revisions) or fixed. We 
propose to interpret each incorporation by reference of a federal 
regulation as referring to the date of adoption of the Vermont 
regulation, i.e., January 24, 2011.

[[Page 49408]]

B. Other Revisions Adopted by Vermont

    Vermont submitted other amendments to its SIP which EPA is not 
acting on at this time. These amendments include Sections 5-101 
(changes to the definitions of Emergency use engine, Federal Land 
Manager, and Public Notice), 5-251 (NOX limits), 5-252 
(SO2 limits), 5-401(1-15, 17, and 18) (Classification of Air 
Contaminant Sources), 5-402 (Written Reports When Requested), 5-404 
(Methods of Sampling and Testing of Sources), 5-406 (Required Air 
Modeling), 5-501 (Review of Construction or Modification of Air 
Contaminant Sources), and 5-502 (Major Stationary Sources and Major 
Modifications).

IV. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve 
Vermont's February 14, 2011 SIP revision, relating to PSD requirements 
for GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, Vermont's February 14, 2011 SIP 
revision establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for determining 
PSD applicability to new and modified GHG-emitting sources in 
accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the preliminary 
determination that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in 
accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting 
for GHGs.
    If EPA does approve Vermont's changes to its air quality 
regulations to incorporate the appropriate thresholds for GHG 
permitting applicability into Vermont's SIP, then Section 52.2372(b) of 
40 CFR part 52, as included in EPA's SIP Narrowing Rule--which codifies 
EPA's limiting its approval of Vermont's PSD SIP to not cover the 
applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule 
thresholds--is no longer necessary. In today's proposed action, EPA is 
also proposing to amend Section 52.2372(b) of 40 CFR part 52 to remove 
this unnecessary regulatory language.

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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: August 2, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2012-20140 Filed 8-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P