[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49404-49408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20140]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0453, FRL-9616-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Vermont: Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas
Permitting Authority and Tailoring Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Vermont State
Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to regulation of Greenhouse Gases
(GHGs) under Vermont's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program. This revision was submitted by Vermont, through the Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC), Air Pollution
Control Division on February 14, 2011. It is intended to align
Vermont's regulations with EPA's ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.'' EPA is
proposing to approve the revision because the Agency has made the
preliminary determination that the SIP revision, already adopted by
Vermont as a final effective rule, is in accordance with the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs.
The SIP submittal also contains proposed amendments to several other
sections of Vermont's SIP not directly related to GHG permitting which
EPA is not acting on at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2011-0453, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: dahl.donald@epa.govmailto:.
3. Fax: (617) 918-0657.
4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0453'',
Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square--
Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Donald Dahl,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits,
[[Page 49405]]
Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R01-OAR-
2011-0453.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding federal holidays.
In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical
support document are also available for public inspection during normal
business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency; Air Pollution
Control Division, Agency of Natural Resources, 186 Mad River Park,
Waitsfield, VT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Vermont
SIP, contact Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New
England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits,
Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Mr. Dahl's telephone number
is (617) 918-1657; email address: dahl.donald@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing in this document?
II. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in this
document?
A. GHG-related Actions
B. Vermont's Actions
III. What is EPA's analysis of Vermont's SIP revision?
A. Greenhouse Gases
B. Other Revisions Adopted by Vermont
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing in this document?
On February 14, 2011, the State of Vermont submitted a formal
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions
establish thresholds for GHG emissions in Vermont's PSD regulations at
the same emissions thresholds and in the same time-frames as those
specified by EPA in the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule'' (75 FR 31514),
hereafter referred to as the ``Tailoring Rule,'' ensuring that smaller
GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to
permitting requirements for GHGs that they emit. The revisions to the
SIP clarify the applicable thresholds in the Vermont SIP, and address
the flaw discussed in the ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas
Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR
82536 (December 30, 2010) (the ``PSD SIP Narrowing Rule''). In today's
action, pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve
these revisions into the Vermont SIP.
EPA is not proposing to take action on various other revisions to
Vermont's state implementation plan contained in the February 14, 2011
submittal. Those are changes to Vermont Air Pollution Control
Regulations, Chapter 5, Sections 5-101 (changes to the definitions of
Emergency use engine, Federal Land Manager, and Public Notice), 5-251,
5-252, 5-401 (except for 5-401(16)), 5-402, 5-404, 5-406, 5-501, and 5-
502.
II. What is the background for the action by EPA in this document?
This section briefly summarizes EPA's recent GHG-related actions
that provide the background for today's proposed action. More detailed
discussion of the background is found in the preambles for those
actions. In particular, the background is contained in what we call the
GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,\1\ and in the preambles to the actions
cited therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. GHG-Related Actions
EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the
regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part distinct from one
another, establish the overall framework for today's proposed action on
the Vermont SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly
called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or Contribute
Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action,\2\ the ``Johnson
Memo Reconsideration,'' \3\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,'' \4\ and
the ``Tailoring Rule.'' Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA,
these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from
new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such
regulations, when
[[Page 49406]]
they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from
stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability
of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA took this
last action in the Tailoring Rule, which, more specifically,
established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the
applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (Dec. 15, 2009).
\3\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (Apr. 2,
2010).
\4\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSD is implemented through the SIP system. In December 2010, EPA
promulgated several rules to implement the new GHG PSD SIP program.
Recognizing that some states had approved SIP PSD programs that did not
apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP call and, for some of these states,
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).\5\ Recognizing that other states
had approved SIP PSD programs that do apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so
for sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 tpy of GHG, and that do
not limit PSD applicability to GHGs to the higher thresholds in the
Tailoring Rule, EPA issued the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. Under that
rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the affected SIPs to the extent
those SIPs covered GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule
thresholds. EPA based its action primarily on the ``error correction''
provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Specifically, by notice dated December 13, 2010, EPA
finalized a ``SIP Call'' that would require those states with SIPs
that have approved PSD programs but do not authorize PSD permitting
for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such authority. ``Action
To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,'' 75 FR
77698 (Dec. 13, 2010). EPA has made findings of failure to submit
that would apply in any state unable to submit the required SIP
revision by its deadline, and finalized FIPs for such states. See,
e.g., ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State
Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,'' 75 FR
81874 (Dec. 29, 2010); ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,'' 75 FR
82246 (Dec. 30, 2010). Because Vermont's SIP already authorizes
Vermont to regulate GHGs once GHGs became subject to PSD
requirements on January 2, 2011, Vermont was not subject to the
proposed SIP Call or FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Vermont's Actions
On July 22, 2010, Vermont provided a letter to EPA, in accordance
with a request to all States from EPA in the Tailoring Rule, with
confirmation that the State has the authority to regulate GHG in its
PSD program. The letter also confirmed that current Vermont rules
require regulating GHGs at the existing 50 tpy threshold, rather than
at the higher thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. See the docket for
this proposed rulemaking for a copy of Vermont's letter.
In the SIP Narrowing Rule, published on December 30, 2010, EPA
withdrew its approval of Vermont's SIP (among other SIPs) to the extent
the SIP applies PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions from
sources emitting at levels below those set in the Tailoring Rule.\6\ As
a result, Vermont's current approved SIP provides the state with
authority to regulate GHGs, but only at and above the Tailoring Rule
thresholds; and requires new and modified sources to receive a federal
PSD permit based on GHG emissions only if they emit at or above the
Tailoring Rule thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for this SIP revision is that limiting PSD applicability
to GHG sources to the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule is
consistent with the SIP provisions that provide required assurances of
adequate resources, and thereby addresses the flaw in the SIP that led
to the SIP Narrowing Rule. Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)
includes as a requirement for SIP approval that States provide
``necessary assurances that the State * * * will have adequate
personnel [and] funding * * * to carry out such [SIP].'' In the
Tailoring Rule, EPA established higher thresholds for PSD applicability
to GHG-emitting sources on grounds that the states generally did not
have adequate resources to apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the
Tailoring Rule thresholds,\7\ and no State, including Vermont, asserted
that it did have adequate resources to do so.\8\ In the SIP Narrowing
Rule, EPA found that the affected states, including Vermont, had a flaw
in their SIPs at the time they submitted their PSD programs, which was
that the applicability of the PSD programs was potentially broader than
the resources available to them under their SIPs.\9\ Accordingly, for
each affected state, including Vermont, EPA concluded that EPA's action
in approving the SIP was in error, under CAA section 110(k)(6), and EPA
rescinded its approval to the extent the PSD program applies to GHG-
emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds.\10\ EPA
recommended that States adopt a SIP revision to incorporate the
Tailoring Rule thresholds, thereby (i) assuring that under State law,
only sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds would be subject
to PSD; and (ii) avoiding confusion under the Federally approved SIP by
clarifying that the SIP applies to only sources at or above the
Tailoring Rule thresholds.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31517.
\8\ SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR 82540.
\9\ Id. at 82542.
\10\ Id. at 82544.
\11\ Id. at 82540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What is EPA's analysis of Vermont's SIP revision?
The regulatory revisions that VT DEC submitted on February 14, 2011
establish thresholds for determining which stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to permitting requirements for GHG
emissions under Vermont's PSD program. The revisions also include
unrelated changes to other portions of the Vermont air permitting
regulations. Specifically, the submittal includes changes to Vermont's
regulations at Chapter 5, Air Pollution Control, Subchapter I
(Definitions), Subchapter II (Prohibitions), Subchapter IV (Operations
and Procedures), and Subchapter V (Review of New Air Contaminant
Sources).
Vermont is currently a SIP-approved state for the PSD program. In a
letter provided to EPA on July 22, 2010, Vermont notified EPA of its
interpretation that the State currently has the authority to regulate
GHGs under its PSD regulations. The current Vermont program (adopted
prior to the promulgation of EPA's Tailoring Rule) applies to major
stationary sources (having the potential to emit at least 50 tpy or
more of a regulated NSR pollutant) or major modifications constructing
in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable with respect to the
NAAQS.
The amendments to Subchapter I that EPA is proposing to approve
into Vermont's SIP include: new definitions of ``Greenhouse Gases'' and
``Subject to Regulation,'' amendments to the definition of ``Major
Stationary Source,'' and the addition of a provision regarding
significance levels of greenhouse gases to the definition of
``Significant.'' EPA is also proposing to approve the classification of
certain sources of greenhouse gas emissions as air contaminant sources
in Subchapter IV, section 5-401(16).
A. Greenhouse Gases
The changes to Vermont's PSD program regulations regarding
greenhouse gases are in most respects substantively the same as the
amendments to the federal PSD regulatory provisions in EPA's Tailoring
[[Page 49407]]
Rule. However, there are several issues that we note here.
First, Vermont submitted as part of its SIP revision its entire
definition of ``significant'' in Section 5-101, not just the addition
made to address greenhouse gases. Vermont's definition of
``significant'' in Section 5-101 departs from EPA's definition of
``significant'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23) in two ways. On the one hand,
Vermont provides significance levels for several pollutants (asbestos,
mercury, beryllium, and vinyl chloride) that are not listed in the
federal regulation. On the other hand, Vermont fails to provide
significance levels for several pollutants (particulate matter 2.5
microns or less in diameter, municipal waste combustor organics,
municipal waste combustor metals, municipal waste combustor acid gases,
and municipal solid waste landfill emissions) that are listed in the
federal regulation. In the first case, the issue is moot because
asbestos, mercury compounds, beryllium compounds, and vinyl chloride
are all listed as hazardous air pollutants under Section 112(b) of the
Clean Air Act, and Section 112(b)(6) provides that PSD does not apply
to hazardous air pollutants listed under Section 112. In the case of
the other pollutants, however, the situation is more complex. Vermont's
regulation neither specifically provides significance levels for these
pollutants (particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter,
municipal waste combustor organics, municipal waste combustor metals,
municipal waste combustor acid gases, and municipal solid waste
landfill emissions) nor provides a default significance threshold of
zero. Therefore, Vermont's regulation fails to require application of
best available control technology for emissions of these pollutants at
any level--even at major source levels. See Section 5-502(3)(a)(i)-(ii)
(applying control technology requirement only to emissions that are
``significant'').
Despite this flaw, EPA is nonetheless proposing approval of
Vermont's SIP revision. The revised definition adds a significance
threshold for ``greenhouse gases,'' which does not exist in the
currently approved SIP, and the lack of significance thresholds for
particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter, municipal waste
combustor organics, municipal waste combustor metals, municipal waste
combustor acid gases, and municipal solid waste landfill emissions is a
continuation from the currently approved SIP, not a new flaw. For that
reason, EPA is proposing to approve Vermont's SIP revision as ``SIP
strengthening.''
Several lesser issues require discussion regarding EPA's proposed
interpretation of the Vermont regulation. First, Vermont defines
``greenhouse gases'' in Section 5-101 as ``carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur
hexafluoride, and any other chemical or physical substance emitted into
the air that the Secretary may reasonably anticipate to cause or
contribute to climate change.'' This definition does not explicitly
state whether ``greenhouse gases'' is an aggregate pollutant consisting
of six (or more) components, cf. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(i), or six (or
more) individual gases. However, elsewhere in Vermont's regulations,
``greenhouse gases'' is referred to in a manner suggesting the
aggregate interpretation. See, e.g., Section 5-101 (definition of
``Major Stationary Source'') (referring to ``the air contaminant that
is greenhouse gases''). Therefore, EPA proposes to interpret the
definition of ``greenhouse gases'' in Section 5-101 as an aggregate
pollutant.
Second, Vermont incorporates by reference EPA's definition of
``subject to regulation'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48).\12\ This definition
provides that the pollutant ``greenhouse gases'' is subject to
regulation if ``both a significant emissions increase (as calculated
using the procedures in (a)(7)(iv) of this section) and a significant
net emissions increase (as defined in paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(23) of
this section) occur.'' 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(iii). This, in turn,
incorporates two different elements of the federal PSD regulation:
emissions increase calculation, and emissions increase netting. For
non-greenhouse gas pollutants, Vermont uses a different emissions
increase calculation methodology, and does not allow for netting.
However, EPA understands that Vermont intends for its greenhouse gas
permitting requirements to match the federal requirements, and
consequently EPA is proposing to interpret Vermont's definition of
``subject to regulation'' as including the calculation methodology
specified in the federal regulations. See also VT DEC's Jan. 3, 2011
response to comments; response No. 2 (emphasizing VT DEC's ``intent to
have the same (and not more stringent) permitting thresholds for
greenhouse gases in Vermont as required by federal regulations''), and
response No. 8 (``The [VT DEC] intends for the federal netting and
baseline calculation procedures to apply for applicability of
permitting greenhouse gases.''). Thus, for example, an existing Vermont
source, in determining whether a proposed modification's greenhouse gas
emissions would be ``subject to regulation,'' would be permitted to use
the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test of 40 CFR
51.166(a)(7)(iv)(c), and to incorporate creditable and contemporaneous
reductions in actual emissions in calculating the ``net emissions
increase.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Vermont regulation actually refers to ``40 CFR
51.166(48)(b)'' [sic]. See Section 5-101 (definition of ``Subject to
Regulation''). We assume this is a clerical error and was intended
to refer to Sec. 51.166(b)(48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, in light of the preceding two proposed interpretations, it
is possible that an ambiguity may arise if Vermont adds a new component
gas to its state-defined ``greenhouse gases'' pollutant but that
component gas is not part of the federal ``greenhouse gases''
definition at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(i). In this situation, it may not be
clear in any given context whether ``greenhouse gases'' in Vermont's
regulations refers to ``greenhouse gases'' as defined by EPA or as
defined by Vermont. This could be relevant if, for example, an existing
source sought to take credit for reductions in a state-only gas when
calculating its net emissions increase of greenhouse gases. Since
Vermont's definition of ``subject to regulation'' in Section 5-101
includes all of 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48), it must therefore include the
federal definition of ``greenhouse gases'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(i).
Therefore, EPA proposes to interpret ``greenhouse gases'' in Vermont's
regulations as meaning greenhouse gases as defined by 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(i) for purposes of the ``subject to regulation''
definition and any reference elsewhere in Vermont's regulations that
specifically references the ``subject to regulation'' definition, but
as meaning greenhouse gases as defined by Section 5-101 for all other
purposes in Vermont's SIP.
Finally, as noted above, the Vermont regulation in several places
incorporates federal regulations by reference. See, e.g., Section 5-101
(definition of ``Major Stationary Source'') (referring to ``the
thresholds in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(i)''). However, these references do
not specify whether the incorporation by reference is intended to be
prospective (i.e., to incorporate the federal regulation as it may be
amended from time to time, without need for revising the state
regulation to accommodate federal regulatory revisions) or fixed. We
propose to interpret each incorporation by reference of a federal
regulation as referring to the date of adoption of the Vermont
regulation, i.e., January 24, 2011.
[[Page 49408]]
B. Other Revisions Adopted by Vermont
Vermont submitted other amendments to its SIP which EPA is not
acting on at this time. These amendments include Sections 5-101
(changes to the definitions of Emergency use engine, Federal Land
Manager, and Public Notice), 5-251 (NOX limits), 5-252
(SO2 limits), 5-401(1-15, 17, and 18) (Classification of Air
Contaminant Sources), 5-402 (Written Reports When Requested), 5-404
(Methods of Sampling and Testing of Sources), 5-406 (Required Air
Modeling), 5-501 (Review of Construction or Modification of Air
Contaminant Sources), and 5-502 (Major Stationary Sources and Major
Modifications).
IV. Proposed Action
Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve
Vermont's February 14, 2011 SIP revision, relating to PSD requirements
for GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, Vermont's February 14, 2011 SIP
revision establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for determining
PSD applicability to new and modified GHG-emitting sources in
accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in
accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting
for GHGs.
If EPA does approve Vermont's changes to its air quality
regulations to incorporate the appropriate thresholds for GHG
permitting applicability into Vermont's SIP, then Section 52.2372(b) of
40 CFR part 52, as included in EPA's SIP Narrowing Rule--which codifies
EPA's limiting its approval of Vermont's PSD SIP to not cover the
applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule
thresholds--is no longer necessary. In today's proposed action, EPA is
also proposing to amend Section 52.2372(b) of 40 CFR part 52 to remove
this unnecessary regulatory language.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 2, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2012-20140 Filed 8-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P