Proposed Rule2025-09274
Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 23, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by Vermont on July 1, 2024, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule for the program's second implementation period. Vermont's SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 99 (Friday, May 23, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 99 (Friday, May 23, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22033-22051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-09274]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2025-0142; FRL-12778-01-R1]
Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan for the Second Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by Vermont on July 1, 2024, as satisfying applicable
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
for the program's second implementation period. Vermont's SIP
submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically
revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress
towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any
existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional
haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also
addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation
period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking this action
pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 23, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2025-0142 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or via email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#54393526203d3a3138383d7a352d3835143124357a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee838f9c9a87808b828287c08f97828fae8b9e8fc0898198">[email protected]</span></a>. For comments submitted at <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
[[Page 22034]]
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>. Publicly
available docket materials are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ayla Martinelli, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 5-MI), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1057, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c9a4a8bbbda0a7aca5a5a0e7a8b0a5a889acb9a8e7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9c4c8dbddc0c7ccc5c5c087c8d0c5c8e9ccd9c887cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
B. Reasonable Progress Goals
C. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan
Requirements
D. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of Vermont's Regional Haze Submission for
the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Vermont's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
B. Vermont's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and the
EPA's Evaluation
C. Identification of Class I Areas
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. Vermont's Response to the Six MANEVU Asks
b. The EPA's Evaluation of Vermont's Response to the Six MANEVU
Asks and Compliance With Section 51.308(f)(2)(i)
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
J. Other Required Commitments
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On July 1, 2024, the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (VT DEC) submitted a revision to its SIP to address
regional haze for the second implementation period. VT DEC made this
SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze
program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. The
EPA is proposing to find that the Vermont regional haze SIP submission
for the second implementation period meets the applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements and thus proposes to approve Vermont's
submission into its SIP.
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A detailed history and background of the regional haze program is
provided in multiple prior EPA proposal actions.\1\ For additional
background on the 2017 RHR revisions, please refer to Section III.
Overview of Visibility Protection Statutory Authority, Regulation, and
Implementation of ``Protection of Visibility: Amendments to
Requirements for State Plans'' of the 2017 RHR.\2\ The following is an
abbreviated history and background of the regional haze program and
2017 Regional Haze Rule as it applies to the current action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 90 FR 13516 (March 24, 2025).
\2\ See 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Regional Haze Background
In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\3\ CAA 169A.
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 which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' CAA 169A(a)(1). Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by a multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities
which are located across a broad geographic area and that emit
pollutants that impair visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants
include fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates,
nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their
precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen oxides
(NO<INF>X</INF>), and, in some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and ammonia (NH3)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible
distance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA
162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of areas to
which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply is
in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
\4\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric used by the RHR. Under many circumstances, a
change in one deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be the
same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is
proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction of
light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to its being
scattered and absorbed as it passes through the atmosphere.
Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used to for
expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters
(Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>). The formula for the deciview is 10 ln
(b<SUP>ext</SUP>)/10 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>). 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both states in
which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment. CAA 169A(b)(2); \5\ see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional
haze SIP revisions); 64 FR at 35768 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for states to
submit plans addressing out-of-state class I areas by providing that
states must address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class
I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22035]]
On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR, 82
FR 3078 (January 10, 2017), that apply for the second and subsequent
implementation periods. The reasonable progress requirements as revised
in the 2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are
codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f).
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in
Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful
implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term,
regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and the emissions that impact
visibility in those areas. In order to address regional haze, states
need to develop strategies in coordination with one another,
considering the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air
quality in another. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs), which
include representation from state and tribal governments, the EPA, and
FLMs, were developed in the lead-up to the first implementation period
to address regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical information to better
understand how emissions from State and Tribal land impact Class I
areas across the country, pursue the development of regional strategies
to reduce emissions of particulate matter and other pollutants leading
to regional haze, and help states meet the consultation requirements of
the RHR.
The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU), one of the
five RPOs described above, 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 Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor of the United States. Member
states and tribal governments (listed alphabetically) include:
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and
Vermont. The Federal partner members of MANEVU are EPA, U.S. National
Parks Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S.
Forest Service (USFS).
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Implementation
Period
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021.
Each state's SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any
existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f) lays
out the process by which states determine what constitutes their long-
term strategies, with the order of the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) through (f)(3) generally mirroring the order of the steps
in the reasonable progress analysis \6\ and (f)(4) through (f)(6)
containing additional, related requirements. Broadly speaking, a state
first must identify the Class I areas within the state and determine
the Class I areas outside the state in which visibility may be affected
by emissions from the state. These are the Class I areas that must be
addressed in the state's long-term strategy. See 40 CFR 51.308(f),
(f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders, a state must then
calculate the baseline (five-year average period of 2000-2004),
current, and natural visibility conditions (i.e., visibility conditions
without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for that area, as well as
the visibility improvement made to date and the ``uniform rate of
progress'' (URP). The URP is the linear rate of progress needed to
attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of
baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending with natural
conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is used as a tracking
metric to help states assess the amount of progress they are making
towards the national visibility goal over time in each Class I area.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each state having a Class I area and/or
emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must then
develop a long-term strategy that includes the enforceable emission
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas. A reasonable
progress determination is based on applying the four factors in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility-impairing pollutants that
the state has selected to assess for controls for the second
implementation period. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Additionally, as
further explained below, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \7\ that states must consider in
developing their long-term strategies. A state evaluates potential
emission reduction measures for those selected sources and determines
which are necessary to make reasonable progress. Those measures are
then incorporated into the state's long-term strategy. After a state
has developed its long-term strategy, it then establishes RPGs for each
Class I area within its borders by modeling the visibility impacts of
all reasonable progress controls at the end of the second
implementation period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts of other
requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include reasonable progress controls
not only for sources in the state in which the Class I area is located,
but also for sources in other states that contribute to visibility
impairment in that area. The RPGs are then compared to the baseline
visibility conditions and the URP to ensure that progress is being made
towards the statutory goal of preventing any future and remedying any
existing anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)-(3). There are additional requirements in the rule,
including FLM consultation, that apply to all visibility protection
SIPs and SIP revisions. See e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that we were
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' 82 FR 3091 (January 10, 2017).
\7\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in section
51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
While states have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a state's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
[[Page 22036]]
Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.\8\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' CAA 169A(g)(1). The EPA has explained that the four-
factor analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction
measures (i.e., control options) for sources; ``use of the terms
`compliance' and `subject to such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1)
can be read that Congress intended the relevant determination to be the
requirements with which sources would have to comply in order to
satisfy the CAA's reasonable progress mandate.'' 82 FR at 3091. Thus,
for each source it has selected for four-factor analysis,\9\ a state
must consider a ``meaningful set'' of technically feasible control
options for reducing emissions of visibility impairing pollutants. Id.
at 3088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. CAA 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-
factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or source
categories, a state may also consider additional emission reduction
measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for
sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the second
planning period.
\9\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' 82 FR at
3088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has also explained that, in addition to the four statutory
factors, states have flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably
consider visibility benefits as an additional factor alongside the four
statutory factors.\10\ Ultimately, while states have discretion to
reasonably weigh the factors and to determine what level of control is
needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a state ``must include in
its implementation plan a description of . . . how the four factors
were taken into consideration in selecting the measure for inclusion in
its long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0531,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be
included in a state's long-term strategy and in its SIP.\11\ If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis is that an emissions reduction
measure is necessary to make reasonable progress towards remedying
existing or preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment, that
measure must be included in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ States may choose to, but are not required to, include
measures in their long-term strategies beyond just the emission
reduction measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. For
example, states with smoke management programs may choose to submit
their smoke management plans to EPA for inclusion in their SIPs but
are not required to do so. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3108-09 (requirement
to consider smoke management practices and smoke management programs
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require states to adopt such
practices or programs into their SIPs, although they may elect to do
so).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The characterization of information on each of the factors is also
subject to the documentation requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
The reasonable progress analysis is a technically complex exercise, and
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and
evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to
determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make
reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on
which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make
reasonable progress.
Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \12\ that states must consider in
developing their long-term strategies: (1) Emission reductions due to
ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address
reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce
the impacts of construction activities; (3) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for
prescribed fire used for agricultural and wildland vegetation
management purposes and smoke management programs; and (5) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state
boundaries, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area. If a
state, pursuant to consultation, agrees that certain measures (e.g., a
certain emission limitation) are necessary to make reasonable progress
at a Class I area, it must include those measures in its SIP. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A). Additionally, the RHR requires that states that
contribute to visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider
the emission reduction measures the other contributing states have
identified as being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own
sources. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a state has been asked to
consider or adopt certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately
determines those measures are not necessary to make reasonable
progress, that state must document in its SIP the actions taken to
resolve the disagreement. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). Under all
circumstances, a state must document in its SIP submission all
substantive consultations with other contributing states. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
B. Reasonable Progress Goals
Reasonable progress goals ``measure the progress that is projected
to be achieved by the control measures states have determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor
analysis.'' 82 FR at 3091. For the second implementation period, the
RPGs are set for 2028. Reasonable progress goals are not enforceable
targets. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii). While states are not legally
obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in their RPGs,
40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he long-term strategy and the
reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility
for the most impaired days since the baseline period and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the clearest days since the baseline
period.''
RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state
[[Page 22037]]
is making towards the national visibility goal. To support this
approach, the RHR requires states with Class I areas to compare the
2028 RPG for the most impaired days to the corresponding point on the
URP line (representing visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility were
to improve at a linear rate from conditions in the baseline period of
2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064). If the most
impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP line (i.e., if visibility
conditions are improving more slowly than the rate described by the URP
line), each state that contributes to visibility impairment in the
Class I area must demonstrate, based on the four-factor analysis
required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional emission
reduction measures would be reasonable to include in its long-term
strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)
requires that each state contributing to visibility impairment in a
Class I area that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP
provide ``a robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria
used to determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated
and how the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken
into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-
term strategy.''
C. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this subsection apply either to states with Class I
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. Compliance with the monitoring strategy
requirement may be met through a state's participation in the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, which is used to measure visibility impairment
caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas covered by the
visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(iv).
All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas, as well as a statewide inventory documenting
such emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii), (v). All states' SIPs
must also provide for any other elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for states to
assess and report on visibility. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
D. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a
state's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether
such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility
improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016); 82 FR at 3119
(January 10, 2017). To this end, every state's SIP revision for the
second implementation period is required to assess changes in
visibility and describe the status of implementation of all measures
included in the state's long-term strategy, including BART and
reasonable progress emission reduction measures from the first
implementation period, and the resulting emissions reductions. 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) and (2).
E. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Clean Air Act section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a
public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must
consult with the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that
consultation, the state must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions
and recommendations in the notice to the public. Consistent with this
statutory requirement, the RHR also requires that states ``provide the
[FLM] with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point
early enough in the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy
emission reduction obligation so that information and recommendations
provided by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on
the long-term strategy.'' 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). For the EPA to evaluate
whether FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has
occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of the timing
and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to the EPA
must also describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the
FLMs. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision 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. 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4).
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of Vermont's Regional Haze Submission for the
Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Vermont's First Implementation Period SIP Submission
VT DEC submitted its first implementation period regional haze SIP
to the EPA on August 31, 2009, with a supplemental submittal on January
3, 2012. The EPA approved Vermont's first implementation period
regional haze SIP submission on May 22, 2012. 77 FR 30212. EPA's
approval included, but was not limited to, the portions of the plan
that address the reasonable progress requirements such as Vermont's
implementation of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) on
eligible sources, Vermont's maintenance of non-EGU point source
controls, as well as Vermont's low sulfur fuel program, Section 5-221
of the VT SIP, ``Prohibition of Potentially Polluting Materials in
Fuel.'' Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g), Vermont was also responsible for
submitting a five-year progress report as a SIP revision for the first
implementation period, which it did on February 29, 2016. The EPA
approved the progress report into the Vermont SIP on December 18, 2017.
82 FR 59969.
B. Vermont's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and the EPA's
Evaluation
In accordance with CAA section 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f), on July 3, 2024, VT DEC submitted a revision to the Vermont
SIP to address its regional haze obligations for the second
implementation period, which runs through 2028. A draft of Vermont's
Regional Haze SIP submission was available for public comment on April
18, 2024, until June 1, 2024. A public hearing was also held on May 22,
2024. VT DEC only received comments from EPA, which are included in the
SIP submission.
The following sections describe Vermont's SIP submission, including
analyses conducted by MANEVU and Vermont's determinations based on
those analyses, Vermont's assessment of progress made since the first
implementation period in reducing
[[Page 22038]]
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants, and improvements to
visibility at its Class I area and nearby Class I areas in other
states. This notice also contains EPA's evaluation of Vermont's
submission against the requirements of the CAA and RHR for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program.
C. Identification of Class I Areas
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each state in which any
Class I area is located or ``the emissions from which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in
a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. The RHR implements this statutory requirement
at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each state's plan ``must
address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
outside the State that may be affected by emissions within the State,''
and (f)(2), which requires each state's plan to include a long-term
strategy that addresses regional haze in such Class I areas.
Vermont has one mandatory Class I Federal area within its borders,
the Lye Brook Wilderness area. Visibility monitoring in this area is
accomplished with instruments located at a single site at Mount Snow in
West Dover, Vermont. This monitoring station represents the Class I
wilderness area. For the second implementation period, MANEVU performed
technical analyses \13\ to help assess source and state-level
contributions to visibility impairment and the need for interstate
consultation. MANEVU used the results of these analyses to determine
which states' emissions ``have a high likelihood of affecting
visibility in MANEVU's Class I areas.'' \14\ Similar to metrics used in
the first implementation period,\15\ MANEVU used a greater than 2
percent of sulfate plus nitrate emissions contribution criterion to
determine whether emissions from individual jurisdictions within the
region affected visibility in any Class I areas. The MANEVU analyses
for the second implementation period used a combination of data
analysis techniques, including emissions data, distance from Class I
areas, wind trajectories, and CALPUFF dispersion modeling. Although
many of the analyses focused only on SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and
resultant particulate sulfate contributions to visibility impairment,
some also incorporated NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to estimate particulate
nitrate contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The contribution assessment methodologies for MANEVU Class
I areas are summarized in appendix E of the docket. ``Selection of
States for MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation (2018)''
\14\ Id.
\15\ MANEVU supporting materials can be found in the docket of
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One MANEVU analysis used for contribution assessment was CALPUFF
air dispersion modeling. The CALPUFF model was used to estimate sulfate
and nitrate formation and transport in MANEVU and nearby regions
originating from large electric generating unit (EGU) point sources and
other large industrial and institutional sources in the eastern and
central United States. Information from an initial round of CALPUFF
modeling was collated for the 444 EGUs that were determined to warrant
further scrutiny based on their emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF>. The list of EGUs was based on an enhanced ``Q/d''
analysis \16\ that considered recent SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in the
eastern United States and an analysis that adjusted previous 2002
MANEVU CALPUFF modeling by applying a ratio of 2011 to 2002
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. This list of sources was then enhanced by
including the top five SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emission
sources for 2011 for each state included in the modeling domain. A
total of 311 EGU stacks (as opposed to individual units) were included
in the CALPUFF modeling analysis. Initial information was also
collected on the 50 industrial and institutional sources that,
according to 2011 Q/d analysis, contributed the most to visibility
impact in each Class I area. The ultimate CALPUFF modeling run included
a total of 311 EGU stacks and 82 industrial facilities. The summary
report for the CALPUFF modeling included the top 10 most impacting EGUs
and the top 5 most impacting industrial/institutional sources for each
Class I area and compiled those results into a ranked list of the most
impacting EGUs and industrial sources at MANEVU Class I areas.\17\
Overall, MANEVU found that emission sources located close to Class I
areas typically show higher visibility impacts than similarly sized
facilities further away. However, visibility degradation appears to be
dominated by the more distant emission sources due to their larger
emissions. The CALPUFF modeling did not include any individual EGU or
industrial/institutional point sources in Vermont because the state's
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions were much lower than the
other regional sources considered in the CALPUFF modeling analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Q/d'' is emissions (Q) in tons per year, typically of one
or a combination of visibility-impairing pollutants, divided by
distance to a class I area (d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is
commonly used as a metric to assess a source's potential visibility
impacts on a particular class I area.
\17\ See appendix C in the Docket, ``2016 MANEVU Source
Contribution Modeling Report, CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical
Generating Units and Industrial Sources'' and Appendix D ``MANEVU
Updated Q/d*C Contribution Assessment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second MANEVU contribution analysis used a meteorologically
weighted Q/d calculation to assess states' contributions to visibility
impairment at MANEVU Class I areas.\18\ This analysis focused
predominantly on SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and used cumulative
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from a source and a state for the variable
``Q,'' and the distance of the source or state to the IMPROVE monitor
receptor at a Class I area as ``d.'' The result is then multiplied by a
constant (C<INF>i</INF>), which is determined based on the prevailing
wind patterns. MANEVU selected a meteorologically weighted Q/d analysis
as an inexpensive initial screening tool that could easily be repeated
to determine which states, sectors, or sources have a larger relative
impact and warrant further analysis. Although MANEVU did not originally
estimate nitrate impacts, the MANEVU Q/d analysis was subsequently
extended to account for nitrate contributions from NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions and to approximate the nitrate impacts from area and mobile
sources. MANEVU therefore developed a ratio of nitrate to sulfate
impacts based on the previously described CALPUFF modeling and applied
those to the sulfate Q/d results in order to derive nitrate
contribution estimates. Several states, such as Vermont, did not have
CALPUFF nitrate to sulfate ratio results, however, because there was no
point sources modeled with CALPUFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See appendix D, ``MANEVU Updated Q/d*C Contribution
Assessment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to develop a final set of contribution estimates, MANEVU
weighted the results from both the Q/d and CALPUFF analyses. The MANEVU
mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate contribution results were reported
for the MANEVU Class I areas. (The Q/d summary report included results
for several non-MANEVU areas as well). If a state's contribution to
sulfate and nitrate concentrations at a particular Class I area was 2
percent or greater, MANEVU regarded that state as contributing to
visibility impairment in that area. According to MANEVU's analyses,
Vermont's highest percent mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate
contribution was estimated to be 2.1% at New Hampshire's two Class I
areas, with contributions ranging from 0.3% to 0.8% at the other nearby
Class I areas.
The EPA concluded in the 1999 RHR that ``all [s]tates contain
sources whose
[[Page 22039]]
emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional haze in
a Class I area,'' 64 FR at 35721, and this determination was not
changed in the 2017 RHR. Critically, the statute and regulation both
require that the cause-or-contribute assessment consider all emissions
of visibility-impairing pollutants from a state, as opposed to
emissions of a particular pollutant or emissions from a certain set of
sources. The screening analyses on which MANEVU relied are useful for
certain purposes. MANEVU used information from its technical analysis
to rank the largest contributing states to sulfate and nitrate
impairment in the seven Class I areas in the MANEVU region and three
additional, nearby Class I areas.\19\ The rankings were used to
determine upwind states that MANEVU deemed important to include in
state-to-state consultation (based on an identified visibility impact
screening threshold). Additionally, large individual source impacts
were used to target MANEVU control analysis ``Asks'' \20\ of states and
sources both within and upwind of MANEVU.\21\ The EPA finds the nature
of the analyses generally appropriate to support decisions on states
with which to consult.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Class I areas analyzed were Acadia National Park in
Maine, Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey, Great Gulf Wilderness
and Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness in New Hampshire, Lye
Brook Wilderness in Vermont, Moosehorn Wilderness in Maine,
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park in New Brunswick, Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia, James River Face Wilderness in Virginia,
and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wildernesses in West Virginia.
\20\ As explained more fully in Section IV.E.a of this proposed
rulemaking, MANEVU refers to each of the components of its overall
strategy as an ``Ask ``of its member states.
\21\ The MANEVU consultation report (Appendix G) explains that
``[t]he objective of this technical work was to identify states and
sources from which MANEVU will pursue further analysis. This
screening was intended to identify which states to invite to
consultation, not a definitive list of which states are
contributing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the analysis and determinations regarding Vermont's
contribution to visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I areas,
the MANEVU technical work focuses on the magnitude of visibility
impacts from certain Vermont emissions on its Class I area and other
nearby Class I areas. The MANEVU contribution screening results
estimate Vermont's highest percent mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate
contribution to be 2.1% at Great Gulf Wilderness and the Presidential
Range-Dry River Wilderness in New Hampshire, with progressively lower
contributions at Moosehorn Wilderness Area in Maine and Roosevelt-
Campobello International Park in New Brunswick (0.8%), Acadia National
Park in Maine (0.6%), Lye Brook Wilderness Area in Vermont (0.3%), and
Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey (0.2%). However, the analyses
did not account for all emissions and all components of visibility
impairment (e.g., primary PM emissions, and impairment from fine PM,
elemental carbon, and organic carbon). In addition, Q/d analyses with a
relatively simplistic accounting for wind trajectories and CALPUFF
applied to a very limited set of EGUs and major industrial sources of
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> are not scientifically rigorous tools
capable of evaluating contribution to visibility impairment from all
emissions in a state. The EPA acknowledges that the contribution to
visibility impairment from Vermont's emissions at Class I areas is
significantly smaller than that from numerous other MANEVU states.\22\
And while some MANEVU states noted that the contributions from several
states outside the MANEVU region are significantly larger than its own,
each state is obligated under the CAA and RHR to address regional haze
visibility impairment resulting from emissions from within the state,
irrespective of whether another state's contribution is greater.
Additionally, we note that the 2 percent or greater sulfate-plus-
nitrate threshold used to determine whether Vermont emissions
contribute to visibility impairment at a particular Class I area may be
higher than what EPA believes is an ``extremely low triggering
threshold'' intended by the statute and regulations. In sum, based on
the information provided, it is clear that emissions from Vermont
contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I areas in New
Hampshire and otherwise have relatively small contributions to the
other nearby Class I areas. However, due to the low triggering
threshold implied by the Rule and the lack of rigorous modeling
analyses, we do not necessarily agree with the level of the State's 2%
contribution threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Because MANEVU did not include all Vermont's emissions or
contributions to visibility impairment in its analysis, we cannot
definitively state that Vermont's contribution to visibility
impairment is not the most significant. However, that is very likely
the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless, we note that Vermont did determine that sources and
emissions within the state, largely from the inclusion of state-wide
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the mobile source sector and area sources
into the modeling, contribute to a 2.1% visibility impairment at NH
Class I sites. Furthermore, pursuant to the regulatory requirements,
Vermont took part in the emission control strategy consultation process
as a member of MANEVU. As part of that process, MANEVU developed a set
of emissions reduction measures identified as being necessary to make
reasonable progress in the seven MANEVU Class I areas. This strategy
consists of six ``Asks'' for states within MANEVU and five Asks for
states outside the region that were found to impact visibility at Class
I areas within MANEVU.\23\ Vermont's submission discusses each of the
Asks and explains why or why not each is applicable and how it has
complied with the relevant components of the emissions control strategy
MANEVU has laid out for its states. Vermont worked with MANEVU to
determine potential reasonable measures that could be implemented by
2028, considering the cost of compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and
the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. As
discussed in further detail below, the EPA is proposing to find that
Vermont has submitted a regional haze plan that meets the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) related to the development of a long-term
strategy. Thus, we propose to find that Vermont has satisfied the
applicable requirements for making reasonable progress towards natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas that may be affected by
emissions from the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Appendix G ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine the following for
``each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State'':
baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the
differences between current visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions, and the URP. This section also provides the
option for states to propose adjustments to the URP line for a Class I
area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or the impacts from wildland prescribed
fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
The Lye Brook Wilderness area has 2000-2004 baseline visibility
conditions of 6.37 deciviews on the 20% clearest days and 23.57
deciviews on the 20%
[[Page 22040]]
most impaired days.\24\ Vermont calculated an estimated natural
background visibility of 2.79 deciviews on the 20% clearest days and
10.24 deciviews on the 20% most impaired days for the Lye Brook
Wilderness area.\25\ The current visibility conditions, which are based
on 2015-2019 monitoring data, were 4.88 deciviews on the clearest days
and 14.06 deciviews on the most impaired days,\26\ which represents an
improvement from the baseline period of 1.49 deciviews on the 20%
clearest days and 9.51 deciviews on the 20% most impaired days.\27\ In
addition, current visibility conditions are 2.09 and 3.82 deciviews
greater than natural conditions on the respective sets of days.\28\ For
the second implementation period, Vermont calculated an annual URP of
0.222 deciviews needed to reach natural visibility on the 20% most
impaired days.\29\ Vermont noted that current visibility conditions on
the most impaired days in the Lye Brook Wilderness Area, at 14.06
deciviews, are already below the 2028 URP glidepath of 18.24 deciviews
for the end of the second SIP planning period.\30\ Vermont has not
proposed any adjustments to the URP to account for impacts from
anthropogenic sources outside the United States or from wildland
prescribed fires. EPA is proposing to find that Vermont has submitted a
regional haze plan that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)
related to the calculations of baseline, current, and natural
visibility conditions; progress to date; and the uniform rate of
progress for the second implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See VT Regional Haze SIP Submission, Table 4-1, ``Baseline
Visibility for the 20% Baseline visibility for the 20% most impaired
days and 20% clearest days (2000-2004) in MANEVU mandatory Class I
Federal areas.''
\25\ See id., Table 4-2 ``Visibility under natural conditions
and difference between baseline and natural conditions for the 20%
most impaired days and 20% clearest days in MANEVU mandatory Class I
Federal areas.''
\26\ See id., Table 4-3: ``Baseline, current, and reasonable
progress goal haze index levels for Class I areas in or adjacent to
the MANEVU Region.''
\27\ Id. at 32.
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id, at 33.
\30\ Id, at 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. Vermont's Response to the Six MANEVU Asks
Each state having a Class I area within its borders or emissions
that may affect visibility in a Class I area must develop a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). After considering the four statutory factors,
all measures that are determined to be necessary to make reasonable
progress must be in the long-term strategy. In developing its long-term
strategies, a state must also consider the five additional factors in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its reasonable progress
determinations, the state must describe the criteria used to determine
which sources or group of sources were evaluated (i.e., subjected to
four-factor analysis) for the second implementation period and how the
four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the emission
reduction measures for inclusion in the long-term strategy. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
The following section summarizes how Vermont addresses the
requirements of section 51.308(f)(2)(i), including a discussion of the
six Asks developed by MANEVU and how Vermont addressed each. The
regulations Vermont identifies as a result of its responses to the six
Asks comprise Vermont's long-term strategy for the second planning
period to address regional haze visibility impairment for each
mandatory Class I Federal area that may be affected by emissions from
Vermont. In Section IV.E.b. of the NPRM, EPA evaluates Vermont's
compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
States may rely on technical information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select sources for four-factor analysis and
to conduct that analysis, as well as to satisfy the documentation
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f). Where an RPO has performed source
selection and/or four-factor analyses (or considered the five
additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states,
those states may rely on the RPO's analyses for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the
states have a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in
the RPO process have approved the technical analyses. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). States may also satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in interstate consultation with other states
that have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a given Class I area under the auspices of
intra- and inter-RPO engagement.
Vermont is a member of the MANEVU RPO and participated in the RPO's
regional approach to developing a strategy for making reasonable
progress towards the national visibility goal in the MANEVU Class I
areas. MANEVU's strategy includes a combination of: (1) Measures for
certain source sectors and groups of sectors that the RPO determined
were reasonable for states to pursue, and (2) a request for member
states to conduct four-factor analyses for individual sources that it
identified as contributing to visibility impairment. MANEVU refers to
each of the components of its overall strategy as an ``Ask'' of its
member states. On August 25, 2017, the Executive Director of MANEVU, on
behalf of the MANEVU states and tribal nations, signed a statement that
identifies six emission reduction measures that comprise the Asks for
the second implementation period.\31\ The Asks were ``designed to
identify reasonable emission reduction strategies that must be
addressed by the states and tribal nations of MANEVU through their
regional haze SIP updates.'' \32\ The statement explains that ``[i]f
any State cannot agree with or complete a Class I State's Asks, the
State must describe the actions taken to resolve the disagreement in
the Regional Haze SIP.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Appendix G ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation.''
\32\ Id.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU's recommendations as to the appropriate control measures
were based on technical analyses documented in the RPO's reports and
included as appendices to or referenced in Vermont's regional haze SIP
submission. One of the initial steps of MANEVU's technical analysis was
to determine which visibility-impairing pollutants should be the focus
of its efforts for the second implementation period. In the first
implementation period, MANEVU determined that sulfates were the most
significant visibility impairing pollutant at the region's Class I
areas. To determine the impact of certain pollutants on visibility at
Class I areas for the purpose of second implementation period planning,
MANEVU conducted an analysis comparing the pollutant contribution on
the clearest and most impaired days in the baseline period (2000-2004)
to the most recent period (2012-2016) \34\ at MANEVU and nearby Class I
areas. MANEVU found that while SO<INF>2</INF> emissions were decreasing
and visibility was improving, sulfates still made up the most
significant contribution to visibility impairment at MANEVU and nearby
Class I areas. According to the analysis, NO<INF>X</INF> emissions have
begun to
[[Page 22041]]
play a more significant role in visibility impacts in recent years as
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions have decreased. The technical analyses used by
Vermont are included in their submission and are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The period of 2012-2016 was the most recent period for
which data were available at the time of analysis. VT also included
2015-2019 data, discussed above in part D of this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> 2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress for
Regional Haze in MANEVU Class I Areas (Appendix L);
<bullet> Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR Optimization on Visibility
Impairing Nitrate Precursor Emissions. November 2017. (Appendix Q);
<bullet> High Electric Demand Days and Visibility Impairment in
MANEVU. December 2017. (Appendix R);
<bullet> Benefits of Combined Heat and Power Systems for Reducing
Pollutant Emissions in MANEVU States. March 2016. (Appendix S);
<bullet> 2016 MANEVU Source Contribution Modeling Report--CALPUFF
Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial Sources
April 4, 2017 (Appendix C);
<bullet> Contribution Assessment Preliminary Inventory Analysis.
October 10, 2016. (Appendix H);
<bullet> Four-Factor Data Collection Memo. March 2017. (Appendix
K);
<bullet> Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the 2008 MANEVU Ask.
July 2016. (Appendix M).
MANEVU gathered information on each of the four statutory factors
for six source sectors it determined, based on an examination of annual
emission inventories, ``had emissions [of SO<INF>2</INF> and/or
NO<INF>X</INF>] that were reasonabl[y] anticipated to contribute to
visibility degradation in MANEVU:'' electric generating units (EGUs),
industrial/commercial/institutional boilers (ICI boilers), cement
kilns, heating oil, residential wood combustion, and outdoor wood
combustion.\35\ MANEVU also collected data on individual sources within
the EGU, ICI boiler, and cement kiln sectors.\36\ Information for the
six sectors included explanations of technically feasible control
options for SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X,</INF> illustrative cost-
effectiveness estimates for a range of model units and control options,
sector-wide cost considerations, potential time frames for compliance
with control options, potential energy and non-air-quality
environmental impacts of certain control options, and how the remaining
useful lives of sources might be considered in a control analysis.\37\
Source-specific data included SO<INF>2</INF> emissions \38\ and
existing controls \39\ for certain existing EGUs, ICI boilers, and
cement kilns. MANEVU considered this information on the four factors as
well as the analyses developed by the RPO's Technical Support Committee
when it determined specific emission reduction measures that were found
to be reasonable for certain sources within two of the sectors it had
examined--EGUs and ICI boilers.\40\ The Asks were based on this
analysis and looked to optimize the use of existing controls, have
states conduct further analysis on EGU or ICI boilers with considerable
visibility impacts, implement low sulfur fuel standards, or lock-in
lower emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See appendix K ``MANEVU Four Factor Data Collection Memo at
1, March 30, 2017.''
\36\ See appendix L ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANEVU Class I Areas, Jan.
31, 2016.''
\37\ Id.
\38\ See appendix K ``Four Factor Data Collection Memo.''
\39\ See appendix M ``Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the 2008
MANEVU Ask. July 2016.''
\40\ See Appendix K ``Four Factor Data Collection Memo'';
Appendix L ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress
for Regional Haze in MANEVU Class I Areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU Ask 1 is ``ensuring the most effective use of control
technologies on a year-round basis'' at EGUs with a nameplate capacity
larger than or equal to 25 megawatts (MW) with already installed
NO<INF>X</INF> and/or SO<INF>2</INF> controls in order to consistently
minimize emissions of haze precursors or obtain equivalent alternative
emission reductions.\41\ MANEVU observed that EGUs often only run
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions controls to comply with ozone season trading
programs and consequently, NO<INF>X</INF> sources may be uncontrolled
during the winter and non-peak summer days. MANEVU found that: (1)
running existing installed controls [selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)] is one of the most
cost-effective ways to control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from EGUs; and
(2) that running existing controls year-round could substantially
reduce the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in many of the states upwind of
Class I areas in MANEVU that lead to visibility impairment during the
winter from nitrates.\42\ MANEVU included this as an emission
management strategy because large EGUs had already been identified as
dominant contributors to visibility impairment and the low cost of
running already installed controls made it reasonable. One EGU in
Vermont was identified as meeting the criteria of Ask 1. This source is
McNeil Generating Station of the Burlington Electric Department, a
biomass-fired EGU that can also fire natural gas and oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Appendix G ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
\42\ See Appendix Q ``Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR Optimization
on Visibility Impairing Nitrate Precursor Emissions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
McNeil Generating Station has a nameplate capacity of 50 MW and is
the largest point source of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in Vermont, at 130
tons per year (tpy). McNeil employs SCR as NO<INF>X</INF> Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) in order to qualify for Class I
renewable energy credits in New England.\43\ The facility also employs
low NO<INF>X</INF> burners when firing natural gas. The facility's
short-term NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits are 0.23 lbs/MMBtu and 145
lbs/hr when burning wood, 0.23 lbs/MMBtu and 57.5 lbs/hr when firing
oil, and 0.13 lbs/MMBtu and 88 lbs/hr for natural gas. To meet the
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirement, the facility is also subject to a
NO<INF>X</INF> limit of 0.075 lbs/MMBtu based on a calendar quarterly
average. SO<INF>2</INF> emissions limitations are set at 0.0015 lbs/
MMBtu for oil. Wood and natural gas have inherently low SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions when burned for fuel. These limits were incorporated into the
Title V operating permit, issued on June 14, 2018. These controls are
also required to be run at all times, including periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction, on a year-round basis. VT DEC also
determined that the source effectively utilizes NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF> controls year-round. Since these controls are already in
effect and are required to operate year-round, VT DEC concluded that it
met the requirements of Ask 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Vermont's most recently revised NO<INF>X</INF> RACT program
was approved into the SIP on 11/26/2019 (84 FR 65011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU Ask 2 consists of a request that states ``Emission sources
modeled by MANEVU that have the potential for 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> or
greater visibility impacts at any MANEVU Class I area, as identified by
MANEVU contribution analyses . . .perform a four-factor analysis for
reasonable installation or upgrade to emissions controls''. MANEVU
developed its Ask 2 list of sources for analysis by performing modeling
and identifying facilities with the potential for 3.0 inverse
megameters (Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>) or greater impacts on visibility at any
Class I area in the MANEVU region. For units identified for the Ask 2
analysis, MANEVU requested that states determine reasonable controls
through the consideration of the four factors on a state-by-state and
unit-by-unit basis. MANEVU's analysis for Ask 2 did not identify any
units in Vermont with a potential impact of 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> or
greater at any MANEVU Class I area. Based on the lack of identified
sources at or above the 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> threshold, Vermont
[[Page 22042]]
therefore concluded that it satisfied Ask 2.
Ask 3 is for each MANEVU state to pursue an ultra-low sulfur fuel
oil standard if it has not already done so. The Ask includes percent by
weight standards for #2 distillate oil (0.0015% sulfur by weight or 15
ppm), #4 residual oil (0.25-0.5% sulfur by weight), and #6 residual oil
(0.3-0.5% sulfur by weight). Vermont adopted the MANEVU low-sulfur fuel
oil strategy into Vermont's Air Pollution Control Regulations (VT APCR
5-221(1)) on September 28, 2011. Beginning in 2014, the first phase of
limitations lowered the allowable concentration of sulfur in No. 2 and
lighter distillate fuels to 0.05% (500 ppm) by weight. In 2018, the
beginning of the second implementation period, the second phase of
limitations further lowered the limit to 0.0015% (15 ppm) by weight. In
addition, the second phase also lowered the sulfur limit for No. 4
residual oils to 0.25% (2500 ppm) by weight, as well as for No. 5 and
No. 6 residual oils, heavier residual oils, and used oils to 0.5% (5000
ppm) by weight. EPA approved APCR revised Section 5-221(1),
``Prohibition of Potentially Polluting Materials in Fuel,'' into
Vermont's SIP on May 22, 2012 [77 FR 30212]. Since Vermont has fully
implemented an ultra-low sulfur fuel oil standard, the State therefore
concluded that it met Ask 3.
MANEVU Ask 4 requests states to update permits to ``lock in'' lower
emissions rates for NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM at emissions
sources larger than 250 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) per hour
heat input that have switched to lower emitting fuels. The threshold of
250 MMBTU/hour was based on prior BART analysis. Because there aren't
any large coal burning units in Vermont, this Ask pertains only to oil
burning units. Vermont did not identify any dual/multi-fuel units
larger than 250 MMBTU/hour that had made a physical change to switch to
a cleaner fuel. All such dual/multi-fuel units are either continuing to
burn a mix of fuels or are choosing to maintain their ability to do so
in the future. Vermont submitted that there are no such facilities in
the State and therefore concluded it met Ask 4.
Ask 5 requests that MANEVU states ``control NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions for peaking combustion turbines that have the potential to
operate on high electric demand days'' by either: (1) Meeting
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions standards specified in the Ask for turbines
that run on natural gas and fuel oil, (2) performing a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation of or upgrade to emission
controls, or (3) obtaining equivalent emission reductions on high
electric demand days.\44\ The Ask requests states to strive for
NO<INF>X</INF> emission standards of no greater than 25 ppm for natural
gas and 42 ppm for fuel oil, or at a minimum, NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
standards of no greater than 42 ppm for natural gas and 96 ppm at for
fuel oil. The peaking combustion turbines located at Vermont stationary
sources that were identified as meeting the criteria of Ask 5 are:
Green Mountain Power (GMP) Unit No. 5 in Berlin, VT and Unit No. 16 in
Colchester, VT (Gorge 16). Unit No. 5 is comprised of two combustion
turbines (Berlin 5A and 5B) connected to a single electrical power
generator. GMP provided VT DEC with four-factor analyses of these three
turbines for installation or upgrade to NO<INF>X</INF> emission
controls. According to the analysis of calendar year 2019, Berlin 5A
and 5B were operated 10.9 and 11.4 hours, respectively, with total
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions equating to .91 tons and .71 tons,
respectively. Gorge 16 was operated for 28.9 hours and emitted 1.31
tons of NO<INF>X</INF>. GMP concluded there were no additional
NO<INF>X</INF> controls that GMP could employ on any of the combustion
turbines that are both technically and economically feasible. GMP
calculated the lowest cost effectiveness value for a control option to
be over $38,000/ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed. VT DEC acknowledged,
however, that the year of emissions it asked GMP to use for the
analyses, 2019, totaled the lowest emissions from the units for the
period spanning 2014 to 2023. Thus, VT DEC recalculated the cost
effectiveness of additional controls based on the median annual
emissions for that ten-year period for each source because the median
represents ``typical'' annual emissions better than each source's 2019
annual emissions do.\45\ Berlin 5A, Berlin 5B and Gorge 16 emitted
median annual emissions of 3.0, 2.8, and 2.9 tons per year,
respectively. Based on these median annual emissions values, VT DEC
calculates the cost effectiveness values for controls to range from
$17,074/ton of NO<INF>X</INF> controlled for water injection to
$48,842,067/ton of NO<INF>X</INF> for SCR. VT DEC concluded that
requiring the installation of additional emissions controls at these
turbines is unreasonable for the second planning period due to a
combination of low hours of operation, low annual emissions generated,
the limited life expectancy of the units (each unit is over 50 years
old), possible non-air quality environmental effects of waste products
from controls (for SCR), and the cost per ton of emissions reduced.
Thus, VT DEC concurred with GMP's initial findings that controls on
these three sources are not necessary to make reasonable progress.
Vermont, based on the low usage, low overall emissions, and the four-
factor analyses provided by GMP, concluded it met Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See appendix G ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation.''
\45\ VT Regional Haze Submission at 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 6 requests MANEVU states to report in their regional haze SIPs
about programs that decrease energy demand and increase the use of
combined heat and power (CHP) and other distributed generation
technologies such as fuel cells, wind and solar. Vermont has a
Comprehensive Energy Plan which describes strategies to decrease energy
demand via energy efficiency and modernize the electrical grid to
handle distributed energy resources.\46\ The Comprehensive Energy Plan
explains, for example, that the State delivers electric efficiency
programs and services primarily through Energy Efficiency Utilities
(EEUs) that provide technical, financial, and educational services to
improve the energy efficiency of homes, businesses, institutions, and
municipal facilities.\47\ Residential energy efficiency investments
have been encouraged through rebates and technical assistance, thus far
amounting to 13 million tons of decreased carbon dioxide emissions
since 2000. More information can be found in Vermont's most recent
Climate Action Plan.\48\ In addition, Vermont participates in the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
state initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to
global climate change. The initiative creates a market for emissions
allowances through a regional cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas
emissions from area power plants. As a co-benefit of this program,
emissions of particle producing pollutants are also reduced. Vermont
emissions allowances are sold at auctions and the proceeds provide
funding for the EEUs mentioned in the Comprehensive Energy Plan.\49\
Vermont is also considering how best to address the implementation of
the State's Global Warming Solutions Act, which is managed by Vermont's
Agency of
[[Page 22043]]
Natural Resources (ANR) Climate Office and is expected to further
reduce greenhouse gas and, as a co-benefit, particle producing
pollutants. Vermont concluded it meets Ask 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ A copy of Vermont's most recent Comprehensive Energy Plan
can be found in the docket of this proposed rulemaking and at:
<a href="https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2022VermontComprehensiveEnergyPlan_0.pdf">https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2022VermontComprehensiveEnergyPlan_0.pdf</a>.
\47\ See Comprehensive Energy Plan at Section 7.5.
\48\ Vermont's most recent Climate Action Plan can be found
here: <a href="https://climatechange.vermont.gov/readtheplan">https://climatechange.vermont.gov/readtheplan</a>.
\49\ Information on Vermont's involvement in the RGGI can be
found here: <a href="https://dec.vermont.gov/air-quality/climate-change/rggi">https://dec.vermont.gov/air-quality/climate-change/rggi</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, Vermont provided four-factor analyses and identified
several SIP-approved mechanisms for controlling pollutants that impair
visibility and that are necessary for reasonable progress--including
its regulations limiting sulfur content in fuels and continued
effective use of NO<INF>X</INF> controls. Vermont also considers its
mobile source emission reduction strategies which reduce NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions in the state to provide reasonable progress in improving
visibility. Additionally, the projected 2028 visibility conditions for
Class I areas in Vermont and influenced by emissions from Vermont
sources are all below the URP.
b. The EPA's Evaluation of Vermont's Response to the Six MANEVU Asks
and Compliance With section 51.308(f)(2)(i)
The EPA is proposing to find that Vermont has satisfied the
requirements of section 51.308(f)(2)(i) related to evaluating sources
and determining the emission reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress by considering the four statutory factors. We
are proposing to find that Vermont has satisfied the four-factor
analysis requirement through its analysis and actions to address MANEVU
Asks 3 and 5. Additionally, in line with recent proposals from the
EPA,\50\ it is the Agency's policy that, where visibility conditions
for a Class I area impacted by a State are below the URP and the State
has considered the four statutory factors, the State will have
presumptively demonstrated reasonable progress for the second planning
period for that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See proposed rulemakings published April 18, 2025 (90 FR
16478) and May 14, 2025 (90 FR 20425).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, Vermont relied on MANEVU's technical analyses
and framework (i.e., the Asks) to select sources and develop its long-
term strategy. MANEVU conducted an inventory analysis to identify the
source sectors that produced the greatest amount of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in 2011; inventory data were also projected to
2018. Based on this analysis, MANEVU identified the top-emitting
sectors for each of those two pollutants. For SO<INF>2</INF>, those
sources include coal-fired EGUs, industrial boilers, oil-fired EGUs,
and oil-fired area sources including residential, commercial, and
industrial sources. In Vermont, the largest sources of NO<INF>X</INF>
include on-road vehicles, non-road vehicles, and EGUs.\51\ The RPO's
documentation explains that ``[EGUs] emitting SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> and industrial point sources emitting SO<INF>2</INF>
were found to be sectors with high emissions that warranted further
scrutiny. Mobile sources were not considered in this analysis because
any ask concerning mobile sources would be made to EPA and not during
the intra-RPO and inter-RPO consultation process among the states and
tribes.'' \52\ EPA proposes to find that Vermont reasonably evaluated
the two pollutants--SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>--that currently
drive visibility impairment within the MANEVU region and that the State
adequately explained and supported its decision to focus on these two
pollutants through its reliance on the MANEVU technical analyses cited
in its submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See appendix H ``Contribution Assessment.''
\52\ See appendix G, ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to evaluate sources or a
group of sources and determine the emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four statutory
factors. As explained previously, the MANEVU Asks are a mix of measures
for sectors and groups of sources identified as reasonable for states
to address in their regional haze plans. While MANEVU formulated the
Asks to be ``reasonable emission reduction strategies'' to control
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants,\53\ Vermont's responses,
in two of the Asks in particular, engage with the requirement that
States determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress through consideration of the four factors. As
laid out in further detail below, the EPA is proposing to find that
MANEVU's four-factor analysis conducted to support the emission
reduction measures in Ask 3 (ultra-low sulfur fuel oil), in conjunction
with Vermont's analysis and explanation of how it has complied with Ask
5 (perform four-factor analyses for measures to control NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions at certain peaking combustion turbines) satisfy the
requirement of section 51.308(f)(2)(i). The emission reduction measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress must be included in the
long-term strategy, i.e., in Vermont's SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Ask 1, Vermont included an analysis of its one EGU (McNeil
Station) subject to the Ask (i.e., a generation capacity >=25MW with
operative NO<INF>X</INF> and/or SO<INF>2</INF> controls). Vermont
asserted that it satisfies Ask 1 because McNeil's NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions limits are based on the use of SCR, low
NO<INF>X</INF> burners, low sulfur fuel and apply year-round. EPA thus
agrees that Vermont satisfied Ask 1.
Ask 2 addresses the sources MANEVU determined have the potential
for larger than, or equal to, 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> visibility impact at
any MANEVU Class I area; the Ask requests MANEVU states to conduct
four-factor analyses for the specified sources within their borders.
This Ask explicitly engages with the statutory and regulatory
requirement to determine the emission reduction measures necessary to
make reasonable progress based on the four factors; MANEVU considered
it ``reasonable to have the greatest contributors to visibility
impairment conduct a four-factor analysis that would determine whether
emission control measures should be pursued and what would be
reasonable for each source.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR recognizes that, due to the nature of regional haze
visibility impairment, numerous and sometimes relatively small sources
may need to be selected and evaluated for control measures in order to
make reasonable progress.\55\ In this case, applying the 3.0
Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> threshold did not identify any sources in Vermont (and
only 22 across the entire MANEVU region). We note, however, that the
3.0 Mm-1 threshold used in this Ask is only one part of the MANEVU
source identification process and that being below this threshold did
not necessarily exclude a source from additional review in connection
with another Ask.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See Responses to Comments on Protection of Visibility:
Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed Rule (81 FR
26942, May 4, 2016), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0531, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency at 87-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA agrees that Vermont reasonably determined it has satisfied Ask
2. MANEVU's threshold did not identify any sources in Vermont for four-
factor analysis. However, EPA notes that Vermont's point sources have
very low NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions overall. While
Vermont did not provide light extinction estimates (Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\)
for its top-emitting sources, it did note that its top NO<INF>X</INF>
point source emitter, McNeil Station, averages only about 130 tons of
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions per year.\56\ Vermont's next top four
NO<INF>X</INF> emitters account for only about an additional 200 tons
of NO<INF>X</INF> per year in total.\57\ Similarly, Vermont estimates
that its top five highest SO<INF>2</INF> emitters together account
[[Page 22044]]
for less than 100 tons of SO<INF>2</INF> per year.\58\ Furthermore,
while Vermont did not consider the four statutory factors for any
sources in response to Ask 2, it did do so in response to Ask 5, where
it examined emissions reduction measures necessary for three combustion
turbines associated with GMP Unit No. 5 and No. 16 as part of Ask
5.\59\ EPA is basing this proposed finding on the state's examination
of its largest operating point sources at the time of SIP submission,
and on the emissions from and controls that apply to those sources, as
well as on Vermont's existing SIP-approved NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF> rules that effectively control emissions from the
largest contributing stationary-source sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ VT Regional Haze SIP Submission at 48.
\57\ Id. at 47-48.
\58\ Id.
\59\ See Appendix T ``Green Mountain Power, Regional Haze
Reasonable Progress Four-Factor Analysis,'' Trinity Consultants
(December 18, 2020); VT Regional Haze SIP Submission, at 49-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 3, which addresses the sulfur content of heating oil used in
MANEVU states, is based on a four-factor analysis for the heating oil
sulfur reduction regulations contained in that Ask; \60\ specifically,
for the control strategy of reducing the sulfur content of distillate
oil to 15 ppm. The analysis started with an assessment of the costs of
retrofitting refineries to produce 15 ppm heating oil in sufficient
quantities to support implementation of the standard, as well as the
impacts of requiring a reduction in sulfur content on consumer prices.
The analysis noted that, as a result of previous EPA rulemakings to
reduce the sulfur content of on-road and non-road-fuels to 15 ppm,
technologies are currently available to achieve sulfur reductions and
many refiners are already meeting this standard, meaning that the
capital investments for further reductions in the sulfur content of
heating oil are expected to be relatively low compared to costs
incurred in the past. The analysis also examined by way of example, the
impacts of New York's existing 15 ppm sulfur requirements on heating
oil prices and concluded that the cost associated with further reducing
sulfur was relatively small in terms of the absolute price of heating
oil compared to the magnitude of volatility in crude oil prices. It
also noted that the additional marginal costs would be offset by cost
savings due to the benefits of lower-sulfur fuels in terms of equipment
life and maintenance and fuel stability. Consideration of the time
necessary for compliance with a 15ppm sulfur standard was accomplished
through a discussion of the amount of time refiners had needed to
comply with the EPA's on-road and non-road fuel 15 ppm requirement, and
the implications existing refinery capacity and distribution
infrastructure may have for compliance times with a 15-ppm heating oil
standard. The analysis concluded that with phased-in timing for states
that have not yet adopted a 15 ppm heating oil standard there ``appears
to be sufficient time to allow refiners to add any additional heating
oil capacity that may be required.'' \61\ The analysis further noted
the beneficial energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of a 15
ppm sulfur heating oil requirement and that reducing sulfur content may
also have a salutary impact on the remaining useful life of residential
furnaces and boilers.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See Appendix L ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANEVU Class I Areas.''
\61\ Id. at 8-7.
\62\ Id. at 8-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont's limitations on sulfur in fuel took effect in two phases.
The first phase, which began in 2014, lowered the concentration of
sulfur in No. 2 and lighter distillate fuels to 500 ppm by weight,
dropping to 15 ppm by weight during the second phase which took effect
on July 1, 2018.\63\ The allowable concentration of sulfur in No. 4
residual oils lowered to 2500ppm by weight during the second phase as
well.\64\ Additionally, Vermont limited the allowable concentration of
sulfur in No. 5 and No. 6 residual oils, heavier residual oils, and
used oils to 5000 ppm by weight.\65\ EPA approved Vermont's sulfur in
fuel regulation into the SIP in 2012.\66\ EPA agrees that Vermont
reasonably relied on MANEVU's four-factor analysis for a low-sulfur
fuel oil regulation, which engaged with each of the statutory factors
and explained how the information supported a conclusion that a 15 ppm-
sulfur fuel oil standard for fuel oils is reasonable. Vermont's SIP-
approved ultra-low sulfur fuel oil rule is consistent with Ask 3's
sulfur content standards for the three types of fuel oils (distillate
oil, #4 residual oil, #6 residual oil) and more. EPA therefore agrees
that Vermont reasonably determined that it has satisfied Ask 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ VT APCR section 5-221(1)(a).
\64\ Id.
\65\ Id.
\66\ See 77 FR 30212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont concluded that no additional updates were needed to meet
Ask 4, which requests that MANEVU states pursue updating permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules to lock in lower emission rates
for sources larger than 250 MMBtu per hour that have switched to lower-
emitting fuels. EPA acknowledges that Vermont does not contain any
sources subject to this Ask.
Ask 5 addresses NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from peaking combustion
turbines that have the potential to operate on high electric demand
days. Vermont identified the following combustion turbines in the State
as meeting the criteria of this Ask: GMP gas turbines No. 5 (Berlin 5A
and 5B), and GMP gas turbine No. 16 (Gorge 16). The Ask requests states
to strive for certain NO<INF>X</INF> emission standards for such
sources or to perform four-factor analyses for reasonable installation
or upgrade to emission controls. Vermont has not adopted emission rules
that meet the stringency of item 5.a. of the Ask. Therefore, Vermont
requested four-factor analyses for Berlin 5A and 5B and Gorge 16. Each
combustion turbine is owned by Green Mountain Power, was originally
installed around the same time (1964-1972), has a similar unit rating
(334 MMBtu/hr-355.5 MMBtu/hr), and has NO<INF>X</INF> emissions ranging
from 0.63 lbs/MMBtu to 0.88 lbs/MMBtu. The median annual NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions for these sources were: GMP Berlin 5A--3.0 tons, GMP Berlin
5B--2.8 tons, and GMP Gorge 16--2.9 tons. As discussed previously,
water injection (0.05 lb/MMBtu) was calculated to be the lowest-cost
control option, but VT DEC determined that, at $17,074 per ton of
NO<INF>X</INF> controlled, it is not cost effective. Additionally, if
employed, this NO<INF>X</INF> control would yield an estimated 5 tons
per year total reduction across all three units.\67\ Thus, in addition
to not being cost effective, employing this additional control would
have only a very small impact on Vermont's annual NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions. EPA agrees that Vermont reasonably concluded from the four-
factor analyses that additional NO<INF>X</INF> controls for these
sources are not necessary for reasonable progress, and that Vermont has
met the requirements of Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See Appendix T ``Green Mountain Power, Regional Haze
Reasonable Progress Four-Factor Analysis'', Trinity Consultants,
December 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, with regard to Ask 6, Vermont described the State's
strategies to decrease air emissions by lowering energy demand via
energy efficiency and modernizing the electrical grid to handle
distributed energy resources, including in Vermont's Comprehensive
Energy Plan. The EPA agrees that Vermont has satisfied Ask 6's request
to consider and report in its SIP measures or programs related to
energy efficiency, cogeneration, and other clean distributed generation
technologies.
In sum, Vermont identified several mechanisms for controlling
pollutants that impair visibility--including its regulations limiting
sulfur content in fuels (which are in Vermont's SIP), as
[[Page 22045]]
well as the continued implementation of NO<INF>X</INF> RACT for point
sources. EPA proposes to find that Vermont has reasonably concluded
that these measures are necessary to make reasonable progress for the
second planning period.
In addition to these SIP-approved measures, Vermont also identified
other federally enforceable and permanent controls, including its
mobile source control measures, as key emission reduction strategies.
On-road mobile emissions reductions are due in part to Vermont's
adoption of amendments to the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) and Zero
Emission Vehicle (ZEV) rules, which incorporate by reference
California's motor vehicle emission standard regulations.\68\ These
standards ensure that vehicles sold in the state meet increasingly
stringent emissions requirements through time. Vermont has also adopted
California's Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, Low
NO<INF>X</INF> Heavy-Duty Omnibus and the Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas
rules.\69\ Other efforts to reduce air pollution from on-road mobile
sources include adoption of inspection and maintenance of vehicle
emissions control systems, enhancement of emissions control technology,
upgrading programs for diesel engines, and participation in regional
and state-specific efforts to build and incentivize zero emission
vehicle infrastructure and ownership.\70\ Vermont states that it is
committed to reducing mobile source emissions to reduce visibility
impairment, both in Vermont and in other impacted states.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See <a href="https://dec.vermont.gov/air-quality/laws-and-regulations/recently-adopted-and-proposed-regulations">https://dec.vermont.gov/air-quality/laws-and-regulations/recently-adopted-and-proposed-regulations</a>.
\69\ Id.
\70\ VT Regional Haze SIP Submission at 56.
\71\ Id. at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is therefore proposing to find the state's approach meets the
statutory and regulatory requirements for several reasons.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to find--based on Vermont's
participation in the MANEVU planning process, how it has addressed the
Asks, and the EPA's assessment of Vermont's emissions and point
sources--that Vermont has complied with the requirements of section
51.308(f)(2)(i). Vermont's application of MANEVU Asks 3 and 5 engages
with the requirement that states evaluate and determine the emission
reduction measures necessary to make reasonable progress by considering
the four statutory factors.
In determining the emissions reduction measures necessary to make
reasonable progress, Vermont reasonably evaluated and explained its
decision to focus on SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> to address
visibility impairment within the MANEVU region. Vermont adequately
supported that decision through reasonable reliance on the MANEVU
technical analyses cited in its submission. EPA notes that MANEVU
concluded that sulfates from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions were still the
primary driver of visibility impairment in the second implementation
period and that MANEVU conducted a four-factor analysis (included with
the State's submittal) to support Ask 3, which addresses SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions by requesting that states pursue ultra-low sulfur fuel oil
standards. Vermont's EPA-approved sulfur fuel oil rule is included in
the State's Long-Term Strategy and sets stringent limits for sulfur
content and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for fuels used for heating and
power generation.\72\ Vermont's rule controls SO<INF>2</INF> emissions
from area and point sources by limiting the sulfur content of No. 2 and
lighter distillate oils to 0.0015% and the sulfur content of No. 4
residual oil and No. 5 and 6 residual oils to 0.25% and 0.5%,
respectively.\73\ EPA previously approved these requirements into
Vermont's SIP,\74\ and they went into effect in July 2018.\75\
Vermont's submittal also includes four-factor analyses for three
NO<INF>X</INF> sources and demonstrates that these and other sources of
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> within the state have very small
emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>, and are already subject
to stringent emission control measures. For instance, while the state
contains no ozone nonattainment areas, Vermont nonetheless applies
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT to certain sources owing to its location within the
Ozone Transport Region. EPA approved Vermont's latest NO<INF>X</INF>
RACT rule in 2019, which has been employed on Vermont's highest
NO<INF>X</INF> emitting point source, McNeil Generating Station, among
others. Vermont estimates point source emissions of NO<INF>X</INF>
amounted to only 2% of all NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in the State.\76\
In addition, and as noted earlier, Vermont estimates that its top five
NO<INF>X</INF>-emitting point sources together accounted for only about
330 tons of NO<INF>X</INF> per year on average, based on 2013-2017
emissions information.\77\ Similarly, NEI data indicate a steady
decline in point source emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> in Vermont, with
the 2017 NEI estimating point source NO<INF>X</INF> emissions at just
393 tpy \78\ and the 2020 NEI at 330 tpy.\79\ Similarly, Vermont
estimates its top five SO<INF>2</INF> emitting sources together
contributed a total of less than 100 tpy over the 2013-2017 period.\80\
As discussed previously, continued implementation of federal mobile
source programs will provide further reductions in NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions from Vermont. Moreover, EPA notes that the FLMs did not
identify any additional sources in Vermont for four-factor analysis or
request any revisions or other analyses.\81\ In particular, the US
Forest Service--the FLM for the Class I areas most impacted by
Vermont--stated that it was ``satisfied'' with Vermont's plan and
offered ``no suggestions for change.'' \82\ Similarly, the National
Park Service commended Vermont on its draft submission and had ``no
further comments at this time.'' \83\ In short, Vermont's
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are already quite low, are
controlled by EPA-approved limits in the SIP (as a result of Regional
Haze and other CAA requirements) and have overall small contributions
to visibility impairment in Class I areas. In conclusion, the projected
2028 visibility conditions for Class I areas influenced by emissions
from Vermont sources are all below the URP, and EPA proposes to find
that Vermont's SIP submittal satisfies the requirements that states
determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress by considering the four factors, and that their
long-term strategies include the enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to make reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ VT APCR 5-221(1).
\73\ Id.
\74\ See 77 FR 30212.
\75\ VT APCR 5-221(1).
\76\ VT Regional Haze SIP Submission at 46.
\77\ Id. at 47-48.
\78\ Id. at 62.
\79\ The final 2020 NEI is available here <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2020-air-emissions-data">https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2020-air-emissions-data</a>.
\80\ VT Regional Haze SIP Submission at 62.
\81\ See Appendix X ``Federal Land Manger Responses.''
\82\ Id.
\83\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
The consultation requirements of section 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the
emission reductions necessary to make reasonable progress. Section
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) respectively require states to include in
their SIPs measures agreed to during state-to-state consultations or a
regional planning process and to consider the
[[Page 22046]]
emission reduction measures identified by other states as necessary for
reasonable progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what happens
if states cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress.
Vermont participated in and provided documentation of the MANEVU
intra- and inter-RPO consultation processes, which included consulting
with both MANEVU and non-MANEVU states about emissions reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in Vermont's Class I
area and emissions from Vermont reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in other Class I areas. The consultations
addressed developing coordinated emission management strategies
containing the emission reductions necessary to make reasonable
progress at the Class I areas. Vermont addressed impacts to the MANEVU
Class I areas by providing information on the measures it has in place
that satisfy each MANEVU Ask.\84\ Vermont included in its Regional Haze
SIP submittal all measures agreed to during state-to-state
consultations and emission reduction measures identified by other
states. While Vermont did not receive any comments from non-MANEVU
states during its public comment period to consider additional measures
to address visibility impairment in Class I areas outside MANEVU,
MANEVU documented issues some non-MANEVU states raised about MANEVU's
analyses during consultation. For instance, MANEVU noted in its
Consultation Report that upwind states expressed concern regarding the
analyses the RPO used for the selection of states for the consultation.
MANEVU agreed that these tools, as all models, have their limitations,
but nonetheless deemed them appropriate. Additionally, there were
several comments regarding the choice of the 2011 modeling base year.
MANEVU agreed that the choice of base year is critical to the outcome
of the study. MANEVU acknowledged that there were newer versions of the
emission inventories and the need to use the best available inventory
for each analysis. MANEVU, however, concluded that the selected
inventories were appropriate for the analysis. Additionally, upwind
states noted that they would not be able to address the MANEVU Asks
until they finalize their SIPs. MANEVU believed the assumption of the
implementation of the Asks from upwind states in its 2028 control case
modeling was reasonable, and Vermont included both the 2028 base case
and control case modeling results in its SIP, representing visibility
conditions at the Class 1 areas in the MANEVU States assuming upwind
states do not and do implement the Asks, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See appendix G ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, Vermont participated in the MANEVU intra- and inter-RPO
consultation and included in its SIP submittal the measures identified
and agreed to during those consultations, thereby satisfying section
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B). Vermont satisfied section
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by participating in MANEVU's consultation process,
which documented the disagreements between the upwind states and the
MANEVU states and explained the latter's reasoning on each of the
disputed issues. Based on the entirety of MANEVU's intra- and inter-RPO
consultation, including the MANEVU responses to other states' concerns
and various technical analyses in the SIP submission, we propose to
determine that Vermont has satisfied the consultation requirements of
section 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
The documentation requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides
that states may meet their obligations to document the technical bases
on which they are relying to determine the emission reductions measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress through an RPO, as long
as the process has been ``approved by all State participants.'' As
explained above, Vermont chose to rely on MANEVU's technical
information, modeling, and analysis to support development of its long-
term strategy. The MANEVU technical analyses on which Vermont relied
are listed in the state's SIP submission and include source
contribution assessments, information on each of the four factors and
visibility modeling information for certain EGUs, and evaluations of
emission reduction strategies for specific source categories. Vermont
also provided information to further demonstrate the technical bases
and emission information it relied on to determine the emission
reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress.
Based on the documentation provided by the state, we propose to find
Vermont satisfies the requirements of section 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions
information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data
to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period
for newly submitted data. Vermont drafted the plan using the 2017
National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The SIP submission included 2017
NEI emission data for NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM, VOCs and
NH<INF>3</INF>. Additionally, Vermont relied on NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions data through 2023 in its assessment of measures necessary for
reasonable progress of Ask 5 sources as well as 2016-2019 Air Markets
Program Data (AMPD) emissions for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>.
Though Vermont provided the section's analysis using 2017 NEI data, the
2020 NEI shows a continued decline in Vermont's NO<INF>X</INF>, and VOC
point source emissions. Using 2020 NEI data would not have affected the
State's source selection or analysis.\85\ For instance, NO<INF>X</INF>
point source emissions in Vermont totaled 393 tons in 2017 and were
reduced to 330 tons in 2020. A portion of this reduction came from
Vermont's top NO<INF>X</INF> emitter, McNeil Station, with
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions falling from 133 tpy in 2017, to 118 tpy in
2020. Additionally, SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from point sources did not
increase, and remained level from 2017 to 2020.Thus, based on Vermont's
consideration and analysis of the emission data in their submittal as
well as the 2020 NEI data for the state, EPA proposes to find that
Vermont has satisfied the emissions information requirement in
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ The final 2020 NEI is available here <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2020-air-emissions-data">https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2020-air-emissions-data</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also propose to find that Vermont reasonably considered the five
additional factors in section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its long-
term strategy. Pursuant to section 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), Vermont noted
that existing and ongoing state and federal emission control programs
that contribute to emission reductions through 2028 would impact
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from point and nonpoint
sources in the second implementation period. Vermont included in its
SIP a list of control measures with their effective dates, pollutants
addressed, and corresponding State regulations.\86\ These measures
include SIP approved revisions such as NO<INF>X</INF> RACT, which has
been employed on the largest NO<INF>X</INF> emitter in the state,
McNeil Electric Generating Station, and requires the year-round use of
SCR at that facility. Additionally, Vermont notes that its limitations
on sulfur in fuel address residential combustion of fuel oil, a
significant contributor to SO<INF>2</INF> emissions
[[Page 22047]]
in the state. Additionally, as discussed previously, Vermont has
adopted the California Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks,
Low NO<INF>X</INF> Heavy-Duty Omnibus and the Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas
rules and recently amended its Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) and Zero
Emission Vehicle (ZEV) rules, to remain consistent with California's
motor vehicle emission standards MANEVU modeling estimated that Vermont
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the mobile source sector contribute to
Vermont's impact to visibility impairment at New Hampshire's Class I
areas, and Vermont's adoption of these rules should address some of
that impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See Section 5.7 of the VT Regional Haze SIP Submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont's consideration of measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities as required by section51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B)
includes recognition that federal regulations require the reduction of
SO<INF>2</INF> from construction vehicles and that crustal material
plays a very small role in visibility impairment in Lye Brook
Wilderness. For these reasons, Vermont deferred evaluation of further
controls to mitigate the impacts of construction activities.
Pursuant to section 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), Vermont noted that while
any source retirements or replacements will result in local benefits,
any resultant emissions reductions will not have a significant impact
on Class I areas in MANEVU given the state's already small amount of
point source emissions.
In considering smoke management as required in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), Vermont explained that fine particulate matter
associated with wood smoke in the State comes largely from residential
and industrial/commercial/institutional wood combustion, as well as
open burning. Currently, Lye Brook Wilderness and other MANEVU Class I
areas are impacted most by wildfire smoke emissions from other regions,
such as the numerous western and Canadian wildfires. Vermont stated
that it will continue to review the impacts of fine particulate matter
from agricultural use of fire and prescribed fire for forest and
ecosystem management and that, if the impacts become important in
maintaining reasonable progress, future revisions to the SIP will
include a smoke management plan. Additionally, Vermont will continue to
consult with the U.S. Forest Service regarding potential impacts of
prescribed fire on visibility in the Lye Brook Wilderness.
Vermont considered the anticipated net effect of projected changes
in emissions as required by 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) by discussing the new
mobile source regulations and The Global Warming Solutions Act. Vermont
anticipates, as the mobile source regulations go into effect, that
emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> will decrease by 2028. In addition, The
Global Warming Solutions will impact emissions from area sources.
Together, these reductions will provide further progress in improving
visibility in downwind states.
Because Vermont has reasonably considered each of the five
additional factors, the EPA proposes to find that Vermont has satisfied
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements pertaining to RPGs
for each Class I area. Because Vermont is host to a Class I area, it is
subject to both section 51.308(f)(3)(i) and, potentially, (ii). Section
51.308(f)(3)(i) requires a state in which a Class I area is located to
establish RPGs--one each for the most impaired and clearest days--
reflecting the visibility conditions that will be achieved at the end
of the implementation period as a result of the emission limitations,
compliance schedules and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2)
to be in states' long-term strategies, as well as implementation of
other CAA requirements. The long-term strategies as reflected by the
RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on the most impaired
days relative to the baseline period and ensure no degradation on the
clearest days relative to the baseline period. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)
applies in circumstances in which a Class I area's RPG for the most
impaired days represents a slower rate of visibility improvement than
the uniform rate of progress calculated under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi).
Under section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the state in which a mandatory
Class I area is located establishes an RPG for the most impaired days
that provides for a slower rate of visibility improvement than the URP,
the state must demonstrate that there are no additional emission
reduction measures for anthropogenic sources or groups of sources in
the state that would be reasonable to include in its long-term
strategy. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a state contains
sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in a Class I area in another state, and the RPG for the most
impaired days in that Class I area is above the URP, the upwind state
must provide the same demonstration.
Table 6-1 of Vermont's SIP submittal summarizes baseline visibility
conditions (i.e., visibility conditions during the baseline period of
2000-2004) for the most impaired and clearest days and the 2028 RPG for
the most impaired days for Vermont's Class I areas, as well as
information on natural visibility conditions, the rate of progress
described by the URP in 2028, and the modeled 2028 base case
(representing visibility conditions in 2028 with existing controls).
Baseline visibility conditions at Vermont's Class I areas were 6.37 and
23.57 deciviews for the clearest and most impaired days, respectively.
By comparison, Vermont has established 2028 RPGs for the clearest and
most impaired days of 3.90 and 13.89 deciviews.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See Table 8-1 of the VT Regional Haze SIP Submission. These
values were modeled not including the MANEVU Asks. EPA supports
these values as the 2028 RPGs. The values for the clearest and most
impaired days including the Asks were 3.86 and 13.68 deciviews,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont's 2028 most impaired base case of 13.89 deciviews reflects
the visibility conditions that are projected to be achieved based on
states' existing measures. As such, EPA was considers the 2028 modeled
base case value of 13.89 deciviews to be the appropriate estimate of
the RPG for the 20% most impaired visibility days (as opposed to the
13.68 deciviews value that includes measures from the MANEVU Asks). EPA
expects that the observed deciview value in 2028 will be equal to or
lower than the 13.89 deciview estimate. Even the conservative estimate
of 13.89 deciviews on the most impaired days in 2028 constitutes
improvement over the baseline visibility conditions of 23.57 deciviews.
Therefore, the long-term strategy and the reasonable progress goals
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days
since the baseline period and ensure no degradation in visibility for
the clearest days since the baseline period. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i).
As noted in the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii), the reasonable
progress goals are not directly enforceable but will be considered by
the Administrator in evaluating the adequacy of the measures in the
implementation plan in providing for reasonable progress towards
achieving natural visibility conditions at that area. The 2028 RPG for
the most impaired days of 13.89 deciviews fulfills the regulatory
purpose of the RPGs because visibility conditions at Vermont's Class I
area have improved since the baseline period. EPA is therefore
proposing to find that Vermont's RPGs satisfy the applicable
requirements and provide for reasonable progress towards achieving
natural conditions.
Table 6-1 of Vermont's submission shows the URP glidepath value for
[[Page 22048]]
Vermont's Class I area in 2028 as 18.24 deciviews. Vermont's RPG is
well below the glidepath value. Therefore, the demonstration
requirement under section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) is not triggered. Nor has
the demonstration requirement under section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) been
triggered. Under paragraph (B), a state that contains sources that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area in another state for which a demonstration by the other
state is required under 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) must demonstrate that there
are no additional emission reduction measures that would be reasonable
to include in its long-term strategy. Vermont's SIP revision included
the modeled MANEVU 2028 visibility projections at nearby Class I
areas.\88\ While these projections may not represent the final RPGs for
these Class I areas, all of the base case 2028 projections for the most
impaired days at these areas (Acadia, Brigantine, Campobello, Lye
Brook, Moosehorn, Dolly Sods, James River Face, Otter Creek, and
Shenandoah) are well below the respective 2028 points on the URPs.
Therefore, we propose it is reasonable to assume that the demonstration
requirement under section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) as it pertains to these
areas will not be triggered for Vermont. We propose to find that
Vermont has satisfied (f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See Appendix B ``Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility
Data 2004-2019 (2nd RH SIP Metrics)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of
a state's regional haze SIP must contain or provide for certain
elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and
any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and
report on visibility. A main requirement of this subsection is for
states with Class I areas to submit monitoring strategies for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting on visibility impairment.
Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in
the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network.
The IMPROVE monitor for the Lye Brook Wilderness, indicated as
LYEB1 in the IMPROVE monitoring network database, is located on the
northern slope of Mount Snow. The monitor site lies in West Dover,
Vermont, near Lye Brook, at elevation 1093 meters, latitude 42.57[deg],
and longitude -72.54[deg]. This monitor is operated and maintained by
the U.S. Forest Service.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See Vermont's 2023 Annual Network Plan which can be found
in the docket of this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess whether reasonable progress goals to address regional haze for
all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state are being
achieved. Vermont has not received any recommendations or advice from
EPA or the U.S. Forest Service that additional monitoring is required
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4). Therefore, Vermont has no current
plans to alter the current strategy as long as this monitoring
continues to be federally supported.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs to provide for procedures by
which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within
and outside the state. Vermont relied on the MANEVU contribution
assessment analysis.\90\ The analysis included Eulerian (grid-based)
source models, Lagrangian (air parcel-based) source dispersion models,
as well as a variety of data analysis techniques that include source
apportionment models, back trajectory calculations, and the use of
monitoring and inventory data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See appendix G ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not apply to Vermont, as it has a
Class I area within its borders.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to provide for the
reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in the state. As noted above, the
Lye Brook Wilderness IMPROVE monitor is operated and maintained by the
U.S. Forest Service. The monitoring strategy for Vermont relies upon
the continued availability of the IMPROVE network. Thus, Vermont
supports the continued operation of the IMPROVE network through both
state and Federal funding mechanisms.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for
the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of
future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Vermont provides for emissions inventories and
estimates for future projected emissions by participating in the MANEVU
RPO and complying with EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). In 40
CFR part 51, subpart A, the AERR requires states to submit updated
emissions inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA's Emissions
Inventory System (EIS) every three years. The emission inventory data
are used to develop the NEI, which provides for, among other things, a
triennial state-wide inventory of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment.
Section 8 of Vermont's submission includes tables of NEI data. The
source categories of the emissions inventories included are: (1) Point
sources, (2) nonpoint sources, (3) non-road mobile sources, and (4) on-
road mobile sources. The point source category is further divided into
Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) point sources and non-AMPD point
sources.\91\ Vermont included NEI emissions inventories for the
following years: 2002 (one of the regional haze program baseline
years), 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2017; and for the following pollutants:
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM 2.5, VOCs, CO, and
NH3. Vermont also provided a summary of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for AMPD sources for the years of 2016, 2017,
2018, and 2019. Consideration of 2020 NEI data shows level and
declining point source emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
respectively and would not have affected the State's source selection
or analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ AMPD sources are facilities that participate in EPA's
emission trading programs. The majority of AMPD sources are electric
generating units (EGUs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires states to include estimates
of future projected emissions and include a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Vermont relied on the MANEVU 2028 emissions
projections for MANEVU states. MANEVU completed two 2028 projected
emissions modeling cases--a 2028 base case that considers only on-the-
books controls and a 2028 control case that considers implementation of
the MANEVU Asks.\92\ Vermont's SIP submittal also includes a commitment
to update the statewide emissions inventory periodically.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See ``OTC MANEVU 2011 Based Modeling Platform Support
Document October 2018--Final.'' Which can be found in the docket of
this proposed rulemaking.
\93\ See VT Regional Haze SIP Submission at 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Vermont has met the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described above, including through its continued
participation in the IMPROVE network and the MANEVU RPO and its on-
going compliance with the AERR, and that no
[[Page 22049]]
further elements are necessary at this time for Vermont to assess and
report on visibility pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic comprehensive revisions
of states' regional haze plans also address the progress report
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The purpose of these
requirements is to evaluate progress towards the applicable RPGs for
each Class I area within the state and each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within that state.
Sections 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states and require a
description of the status of implementation of all measures included in
a state's first implementation period regional haze plan and a summary
of the emission reductions achieved through implementation of those
measures. Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to states with Class I
areas within their borders and requires such states to assess current
visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative to baseline
(2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in visibility conditions
relative to the period addressed in the first implementation period
progress report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states and
requires an analysis tracking changes in emissions of pollutants
contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and sectors
since the period addressed by the first implementation period progress
report. This provision further specifies the year or years through
which the analysis must extend depending on the type of source and the
platform through which its emission information is reported. Finally,
40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), which also applies to all states, requires an
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within
or outside the state that have occurred since the period addressed by
the first implementation period progress report, including whether such
changes were anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded
expected progress towards reducing emissions and improving visibility.
Vermont's submission describes the status of measures of the long-
term strategy from the first implementation period. As a member of
MANEVU, Vermont considered the MANEVU Asks and adopted corresponding
measures into its long-term strategy for the first implementation
period. The MANEVU Asks were: (1) Timely implementation of Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements; (2) EGU controls
including Controls at 167 Key Sources that most affect MANEVU Class I
areas; (3) Low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (4) Continued evaluation
of other control measures. Vermont met all the identified reasonable
measures requested during the first implementation period. During the
first planning period for regional haze, programs that were put in
place focused on reducing sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) emissions.
The reductions achieved led to vast improvements in visibility at the
MANEVU Federal Class I Areas due to reduced sulfates formed from
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Vermont lists in its submission an expansive
list of control measures that help control the emissions of VOCs,
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM and SO<INF>2</INF> from a wide range of sources.\94\
Vermont's SIP submission includes emission data demonstrating the
reductions achieved throughout the state through implementation of the
measures mentioned. The state included periodic emission data that
demonstrate a decrease in VOCs, NO<INF>X</INF>, PM and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions throughout the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See Section 8.2 of the VT Regional Haze SIP Submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Vermont has met the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its SIP submission describes the
measures included in the long-term strategy from the first
implementation period, as well as the status of their implementation
and the emission reductions achieved through such implementation.
Vermont's SIP submission includes the assessments of visibility
conditions and changes at the State's class I areas, expressed in terms
of 5-year averages, required by section 51.308(g)(3). In particular,
Vermont's submission reports current (2015-2019) visibility conditions
for the most impaired and clearest days of 14.06 and 4.88 deciviews,
respectively, indicating that haze index levels have decreased by 9.51
deciviews on the most impaired days and 1.49 deciviews on the clearest
days from baseline visibility conditions (2000-2004).\95\ The SIP
submission also indicates that, since the period addressed in Vermont's
previous progress report (2010-2014), haze index levels have decreased
by 4.44 and 0.22 deciviews on the most impaired and clearest days,
respectively. EPA therefore proposes to find that Vermont has satisfied
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Id. at Section 8.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 51.308(g)(4), Vermont provided a summary of
emissions of NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>,
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, VOCs, and NH3 from all sources and activities,
including from point, nonpoint, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile
sources, for the time period from 2002 to 2017, based on emission
inventory information submitted pursuant to the AERR in 40 CFR part 51,
subpart A. With respect to sources that report directly to the EPA,
Vermont also included AMPD data for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions for 2016 through 2019.
The reductions achieved by Vermont's emission control measures are
seen in the emissions inventory. Based on Vermont's SIP submission,
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions have continuously declined in Vermont from
2002 through 2017, especially in the onroad mobile sector. Vermont
considers its mobile source emission reduction strategies as the most
viable way to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in the state that may be
impacting New Hampshire's Class I area. As discussed previously,
Vermont's adoption of California standards for on-road vehicles drives
emissions reductions in the on- road sector. Initiatives in Vermont to
reduce on-road NO<INF>X</INF> emissions include projects using the
funding from the Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation trust such as a
pilot project for electrifying school and transit buses, the
installation of electric vehicle supply equipment to help support and
accelerate electric vehicle adoption, and several ongoing heavy-duty
vehicle electrification projects. Additionally, there are a wide range
of federal rules which reduce emissions from non-road vehicles and
equipment.\96\ NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are expected to continue to
decrease as fleet turnover occurs and the older more polluting vehicles
and equipment are replaced by newer, cleaner ones. Vermont sources that
report to the EPA's AMPD showed a decline in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
in the period since the last progress report (167 tons in 2016 and 133
tons in 2019).\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ See 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004), 73 FR 37096 (June 30,
2008), 73 FR 59034 (October 8, 2008)
\97\ See VT Regional Haze SIP Submission at Figure 8-5
``NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions for all Data Categories, 2002-2017 (tpy)
in Vermont'', and Figure 8-8: ``NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions from AMPD
sources in MANEVU States, 2016-2019 (tpy).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> have shown a steady significant decline
in Vermont over the period 2002 to 2017, across all sectors. Large
decreases are attributable to Vermont's adoption of the MANEVU low
sulfur fuel strategy.\98\ Since some components of the low sulfur fuel
strategy have milestones of 2014, 2016 and 2018, and as MANEVU states
continue to adopt rules to implement
[[Page 22050]]
the strategy, additional SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions have
likely been obtained since 2017 and are expected to continue into the
future. Other SO<INF>2</INF> emissions decreases are due to fuel
switching due to the availability of less expensive natural gas in
recent years, and source shutdowns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Id. at 72 (Figure 8-16); see also id. at 55-56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont's submission analyzes the change in PM<INF>10</INF>
emissions from all NEI point, nonpoint, non-road, and onroad data
categories in Vermont, noting that PM<INF>10</INF> emissions have
steadily declined, particularly between the 2002 inventory to the 2014
inventory.\99\ However, the 2017 inventory shows an increase in
PM<INF>10</INF> emissions. Vermont attributes this increase to the
unpaved road dust sector, where the calculation methodology related to
the allocation of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) to unpaved roads used
for the 2017 inventory differed from what was used for the 2014
inventory. Vermont's 2017 inventory reports that the second largest
PM<INF>10</INF> source in the state, emissions from residential wood
combustion, actually declined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Id. at 67 (Figure 8-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont also analyzes PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from all NEI data
categories for the period from 2002 to 2017, noting that they have
steadily decreased in Vermont.\100\ Overall, there is a minor decrease
reported from 2002 to 2017 in PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions across all NEI
categories due to Federal and State regulations. Particulate matter
emissions are difficult to determine a reliable trend for, due to
changes in methodology between inventories and the uncertainty with
vehicle miles traveled data and residential wood combustion estimates.
For these reasons, there is significant variation in both particulate
matter estimates in the emission inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Id. at 69 (Figure 8-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 8-21 of Vermont's submission shows VOC emissions from all
NEI data categories for the period 2002 to 2017 in Vermont. VOC
emissions have shown a decline in the state over this time period.
However, the sharp decline in nonpoint VOC since 2002 is partly
attributable to revised methodology for residential wood combustion,
resulting in an overstated decrease. Much of the reduction seen in the
nonroad sector for 2017 is likely attributable to changes in
methodology, incorporation of the EPA MOVES model between the 2014 and
2017 NEIs, as well as updated vehicle populations and emission factors.
VOC emissions from non-road and on-road mobile sources are expected to
continue to decrease as older, more polluting vehicles are replaced by
newer, cleaner ones.
Figure 8-24 of Vermont's submission shows ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>)
emissions from all NEI data categories for the period 2002 to 2017. The
figure displays a general downward trend in Vermont, with some year-to-
year variability. The figure displays a sharp reduction in ammonia
emissions in 2014. This rapid decline could be due to changes in the
calculation methodology for agricultural livestock waste, which is the
largest contributor to ammonia emissions. Further decreases in ammonia
emissions were achieved in the onroad sectors due to federal engine
standards for vehicles and equipment. For many MANEVU states, ammonia
emissions for 2014 and 2017 are lower than they were for earlier years.
Vermont, like most MANEVU states, saw increases in 2017 relative to
2014, which Vermont states could likely be the result of estimation
methodology changes. Emissions from 2002-2008 are not comparable to
post-2008 emissions due to methodology changes.
The EPA is proposing to find that Vermont has satisfied the
requirements of section 51.308(g)(4) by providing emissions information
for NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
VOCs, and NH3 broken down by type of source.
The emissions trend data in the SIP submission \101\ support
Vermont's assessment that no significant increase of haze-causing
pollutant emissions has occurred in the state during the reporting
period and that changes in emissions have not limited or impeded
progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility.
Vermont notes that, both within and outside the State, there has been a
shift to cleaner generation of electricity using natural gas in place
of fuels such as coal or oil that has contributed to reduced emissions
of haze-causing pollutants. The EPA is proposing to find that Vermont
has met the requirements of section 51.308(g)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Id. at Section 8 ``Progress Report and Periodic Reports.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act requires states to consult
with FLMs before holding the public hearing on a proposed regional haze
SIP, and to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and
recommendations in the notice to the public. In addition, section
51.308(i)(2)'s FLM consultation provision requires a state to provide
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the
state's policy analyses of its emission reduction obligation so that
information and recommendations provided by the FLMs can meaningfully
inform the state's decisions on its long-term strategy. If the
consultation has taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing
or public comment period, the opportunity for consultation will be
deemed early enough. Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must
be provided at least sixty days before a public hearing or public
comment period at the state level. Section 51.308(i)(2) further
provides that FLMs must be given an opportunity to discuss their
assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I area and their
recommendations on the development and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) requires states, in
developing their implementation plans, to include a description of how
they addressed FLMs' comments.
The states in the MANEVU RPO conducted FLM consultation early in
the planning process concurrent with the state-to-state consultation
that formed the basis of the RPO's decision making process. As part of
the consultation, the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and
comment on the technical documents developed by MANE-VU. The FLMs were
invited to attend the intra- and inter-RPO consultations calls among
states and at least one FLM representative was documented to have
attended seven intra-RPO meetings and all inter-RPO meetings. Vermont
participated in these consultation meetings and calls.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ See Appendix G ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this early engagement with the FLMs, on April 12, 2018,
the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) sent letters to the MANEVU states
requesting that they consider specific individual sources in their
long-term strategies.\103\ NPS used an analysis of emissions divided by
distance (Q/d) to estimate the impact of MANEVU facilities. To select
the facilities, NPS first summed 2014 NEI NO<INF>X</INF>,
PM<INF>10</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and SO4 emissions and divided by the
distance to a specified NPS mandatory Class I Federal area. NPS summed
the Q/d values across all MANEVU states relative to Acadia, Mammoth
Cave and Shenandoah National Parks, ranked the Q/d values relative to
each Class I area, created a running total, and identified those
facilities contributing to 80% of the total impact at each NPS Class I
area. NPS merged the resulting lists of
[[Page 22051]]
facilities and sorted them by their states. NPS suggested that a state
consider those facilities comprising 80% of the Q/d total, not to
exceed the 25 top ranked facilities. The NPS did not identify any
facilities in Vermont in this letter.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Id.
\104\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 11, 2022, the NPS sent a summary of their review of the
draft Regional Haze SIP via email, stating that the NPS ``commend[s]
Vermont for doing a good job outlining and incorporating the technical
analyses produced by MANE-VU'' and that ``NPS has no further comments
at this time.'' \105\ On September 20, 2022, the U.S. Forest Service
indicated by letter that it was ``satisfied with the document as
provided and offer[ed] no suggestions for change.'' \106\ In accordance
with CAA section 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), Vermont included
summaries of the consultation and copies of the FLM correspondence in
appendices G and X of the SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ See Appendix X ``Federal Land Manager Responses''.
\106\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont held a public comment period and public hearing for this
Regional Haze SIP Revision. On April 19, 2024, VT DEC published a
notice in the Vermont Environmental Notice Bulletin announcing the
public hearing and the opportunity to submit written comments on the
SIP revision until June 1, 2024.\107\ EPA provided written comments on
May 30, 2024.\108\ Vermont did not receive any other comments.\109\ VT
DEC held a public hearing in Montpelier, VT on May 22, 2024.\110\ No
one attended the meeting.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See VT DEC, ``Notice of Intent to submit the State
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze Second Implementation
Period.''
\108\ See Appendix Y ``EPA Comments for Vermont Proposed
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.''
\109\ See Section 10 of the VT Regional Haze SIP Submission.
\110\ Id.
\111\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons stated above, the EPA proposes to find that Vermont
has satisfied the requirements under CAA section 169A(d) and 40 CFR
51.308(i) regarding consultation with the FLMs on its regional haze SIP
for the second implementation period.
J. Other Required Commitments
Vermont's July 1, 2024, SIP submission includes a commitment to
revise and submit a subsequent regional haze SIP when due. The state's
commitment includes submitting periodic progress reports in accordance
with section 51.308(f) and a commitment to evaluate progress towards
the reasonable progress goal for each mandatory Class I Federal area
located within the state and in each mandatory Class I Federal area
located outside the state that may be affected by emissions from within
the state in accordance with section 51.308(g).\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Id. at Section 1.2.3 and Section 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve Vermont's July 1, 2024, SIP
submission as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second
implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f).
VI. 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. See 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:
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866;
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> 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.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: May 14, 2025.
Mark Sanborn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2025-09274 Filed 5-22-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 23, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.