Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0689-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approvals and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Vermont; Regional Haze
Posted Date: 2012-02-28T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11914-11928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4683]

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

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

[[Page 11915]]

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

[[Page 11916]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
long-term 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 11917]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 11918]]

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 BART-eligible 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

[[Page 11919]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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.
    \5\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 11920]]

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    Average for
                                           percent worst  the 20 percent
                                             days (dv)    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CMAQ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Mid-Atlantic 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the NESCAUM Document ``Regional Haze and Visibility in 
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States,'' January 31, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 11921]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ MANE-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This report has been included as part of the docket for 
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ MANE-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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         2018                           Natural
                                                     baseline       Projection          URP         background
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lye Brook Wilderness Area.....  20% Worst                   24.4            20.9           21.43            11.7
                                 Visibility Days.
                                20% Best                     6.4             5.5  ..............             2.8
                                 Visibility Days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 11922]]

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 resource-intensive 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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) Five-Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of 
Options for Conducting BART Determinations (available at 
www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-final-memo-06-28-07.pdf); and (d) 
Assessment of Control Technology Options for BART-Eligible Sources: 
Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, 
and Pulp Facilities (available at www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf).
    The LTS was developed by 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

[[Page 11923]]

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) on-road mobile sources. 
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation also developed an 
inventory of biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU region. 
Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater than a 
specified tonnage per year, depending on the pollutant, with data 
provided at the facility level. Stationary area sources are those 
sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the 
large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source 
category could be significant. 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 
Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreation Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Vermont's recently enacted legislation, Title 10 V.S.A. 
Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines (67 
FR 68241, (Nov. 8, 2002));

[[Page 11924]]

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 
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast States and the District of Columbia. The 
modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with 
selection of the modeling system. MANE-VU used the following modeling 
system:
     Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania 
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic, 
prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-
scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory 
modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 
Emissions (SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system is an emissions modeling 
system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of 
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission 
sources for photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale 
Air Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable 
of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional 
scale.
     Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and 
Deposition (REMSAD) is a Eulerian grid model that was primarily used to 
determine the attribution of sulfate species in the Eastern US via the 
species-tagging scheme.
     Air Quality Model: The California Puff Model (CALPUFF), 
version 5 is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model used to access 
the contribution of individual States' emissions to sulfate levels at 
selected Class I receptor sites.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and 
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that 
covers the 11 MANE-VU States (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and States adjacent 
to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling 
grid of 36x36 km grid cells that covers the continental United States, 
portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific 
Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a representative 
period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality 
conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes 
in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. MANE-VU conducted an 
in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the entire year of 
2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology 
available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU States' 
modeling was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use of 
Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality 
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, April 2007 (EPA-
454/B-07-002, available at www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-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

[[Page 11925]]

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 BART-eligible 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Appendix G--``2018 Emissions from EGUs in the Eastern 
US'' of the Vermont SIP submittal for a complete listing of the 167 
stacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 11926]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This document has been provided as part of the docket to 
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The construction industry is already subject to requirements for 
controlling pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment. For 
example, federal regulations require the reduction of SO2 
emissions from construction vehicles.
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This document has been included as part of the docket to 
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Projected visibility improvements for each MANE-VU Class I 
area can be found in the NESCAUM document dated May 13, 2008, ``2018 
Visibility Projections'' (www.nescaum.org/documents/2018-visibility-projections-final-05-13-08.pdf/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, EPA is proposing to find that 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 Inter-
RPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation Framework that documented the 
consultation process within the context of regional phase planning, and 
was intended to create greater certainty and understanding among RPOs. 
MANE-VU States held ten consultation meetings and/or conference calls 
from March 1, 2007 through March 21, 2008. In addition to MANE-VU 
members attending these meetings and conference calls, participants 
from the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the 
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO, Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal Land 
Managers were also in attendance. In addition to the conference calls 
and meeting, the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and comment 
on each of the technical documents developed by MANE-VU.

[[Page 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; state-operated rural and urban 
speciation sites using IMPROVE or STN methods; and the Supersites 
program, which has provided information through special studies that 
generally expands our understanding of the processes that control fine 
particle formation and transport in the region. 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

[[Page 11928]]

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