
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41158-41177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17664]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0092; FRL-9437-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
West Virginia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval 
of a revision to the West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submitted by the State of West Virginia through the West Virginia 
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) on June 18, 2008, that 
addresses regional haze for the first implementation period. This 
revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 
EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future, and remedy any 
existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I 
areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources 
located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional 
haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress 
toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in 
Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision 
to implement the regional haze requirements for West Virginia on the 
basis that the revision, as a whole, strengthens the West Virginia SIP. 
Also in this action, EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of this 
same SIP revision because of the deficiencies in the State's June 2008 
regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). EPA is also proposing to approve this 
revision as meeting the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 
110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 
2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0092 by one of the following methods
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0092, Cristina Fernandez, Associate 
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0092. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online 
at http://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 information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov website 
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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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

[[Page 41159]]

the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the 
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the 
State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of 
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., 
Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden, (215) 814-2096, or by 
e-mail at linden.melissa@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 18, 2008, the WVDEP submitted a 
revision to its SIP for Regional Haze.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the RHR
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is the relationship of the CAIR to the regional haze 
requirements?
    A. Overview of EPA's CAIR
    B. Remand of the CAIR
    C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially Affected by the CAIR 
Remand
    D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed Limited Approval
V. What is EPA's analysis of West Virginia's regional haze 
submittal?
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    2. Modeling to Support the LTS and Determine Visibility 
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, 
Source Categories, and Geographic Areas
    4. Procedure for Identifying Sources to Evaluate for Reasonable 
Progress Controls in West Virginia and Surrounding Areas
    5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable 
Progress Analysis
    6. BART
    7. RPGs
    D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    F. Consultation With States and FLMs
    1. Consultation With Other States
    2. Consultation With the FLMs
    G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
VI. What action is EPA proposing?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is 
used, we mean EPA.

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of West Virginia's June 18, 
2008 SIP revision addressing regional haze because the revision as a 
whole strengthens the West Virginia SIP. EPA is also proposing to find 
that this revision meets the applicable visibility related requirements 
of CAA Section 110(a)(2) including, but not limited to 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility protection 
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS. However, the West Virginia SIP relies on CAIR, an EPA rule, to 
satisfy key elements of the regional haze requirements. Due to the 
remand of CAIR, see North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Circuit 
2008), the revision does not meet all of the applicable requirements of 
the CAA and EPA's regulations as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of 
the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308. As a result, EPA is concurrently 
proposing a limited disapproval of West Virginia's SIP revision. The 
revision nevertheless represents an improvement over the current SIP, 
and makes considerable progress in fulfilling the applicable CAA 
regional haze program requirements. This proposed rulemaking explains 
the basis for EPA's proposed limited approval and limited disapproval 
actions.
    Under the CAA, sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6), and EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire 
SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA 
from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. Processing of State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Air Division 
Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni 
Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. The deficiencies that EPA has identified as preventing a 
full approval of this SIP revision relate to the status and impact of 
CAIR on certain interrelated and required elements of the regional haze 
program. At the time the West Virginia regional haze SIP was being 
developed, the State's reliance on CAIR was fully consistent with EPA's 
regulations, see (70 FR 39104, 39142-4143, July 6, 2005). CAIR, as 
originally promulgated, requires significant reductions in emissions of 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) to 
limit the interstate transport of these pollutants, and the reliance on 
CAIR by affected states as an alternative to requiring BART for 
electrical generating units (EGUs) had specifically been upheld in 
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (DC Circuit 2006). 
In 2008, however, the DC Circuit remanded CAIR back to EPA. See North 
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176. The court found CAIR to be inconsistent 
with the requirements of the CAA, see North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 
896 (DC Circuit 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without 
vacatur because it found that ``allowing CAIR to remain in effect until 
it is replaced by a rule consistent with [the court's] opinion would at 
least temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.'' 
See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. In response to the court's 
decision, EPA has proposed a new rule to address interstate transport 
of NOX and SOX in the eastern United States. (75 
FR 45210, Aug. 2, 2010) (``the Transport Rule''). EPA explained in that 
proposal that the Transport Rule, when finalized, will

[[Page 41160]]

replace CAIR and the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs). In other 
words, the CAIR and CAIR FIP requirements, which were found to be 
illegal by the DC Circuit, will not remain in force after the Transport 
Rule requirements are in place. Given the status of CAIR, EPA is 
proposing to find that West Virginia may not rely on CAIR in its 
present form to provide reductions to satisfy the reasonable progress 
and BART requirements of the regional haze program.
    While CAIR will not remain in effect indefinitely, it is currently 
in force. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176. By granting limited 
approval of West Virginia's regional haze SIP, EPA will allow the State 
to rely on the emissions reductions associated with CAIR for so long as 
CAIR is in place. We believe that this course of action is consistent 
with the court's intention to keep CAIR in place in order to 
``temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.'' Id, 
at 1178.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors 
(e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some cases, ammonia 
(NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle 
precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter that 
impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 
impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one 
can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and 
mortality in humans and contributes to environmental effects such as 
acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \1\ in many Class I areas 
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. 
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average 
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. (64 
FR 35715, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \2\ which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, 
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first 
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on 
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between 
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value. (44 FR 69122, 
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 
1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility 
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing 
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility 
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional 
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's 
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the 
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in 
section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze 
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin 
Islands.\3\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first 
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no 
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit 
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico 
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and 
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air 
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate 
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged 
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and 
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to 
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas 
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional 
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other 
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the 
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, 
tribal governments, and various Federal Agencies established to 
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of 
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the 
Southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments 
include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West

[[Page 41161]]

Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility

    Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require that 
within three years of promulgation of a NAAQS, a State must ensure that 
its SIP, among other requirements, ``contains adequate provisions 
prohibiting any source or other types of emission activity within the 
State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will interfere 
with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation 
plan for any other State to protect visibility.'' Similarly, section 
110(a)(2)(J) requires that such SIP ``meet the applicable requirements 
of part C of (Subchapter I) (relating to visibility protection).''
    EPA's 2006 Guidance, entitled ``Guidance for State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' recognized the possibility 
that a state could potentially meet the visibility portions of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission of a Regional Haze SIP, as 
required by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. EPA's 2009 guidance, 
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) 
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' recommended that a state could 
meet such visibility requirements through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA's 
rationale supporting this recommendation was that the development of 
the regional haze SIPs was intended to occur in a collaborative 
environment among the states, and that through this process states 
would coordinate on emissions controls to protect visibility on an 
interstate basis. The common understanding was that, as a result of 
this collaborative environment, each state would take action to achieve 
the emissions reductions relied upon by other states in their 
reasonable progress demonstrations under the Regional Haze Rule. This 
interpretation is consistent with the requirement in the Regional Haze 
Rule that a state participating in a regional planning process must 
include ``all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission 
reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.'' 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    The regional haze program, as reflected in the Regional Haze Rule, 
recognizes the importance of addressing the long-range transport of 
pollutants for visibility and encourages states to work together to 
develop plans to address haze. The regulations explicitly require each 
state to address its share of the emission reductions needed to meet 
the reasonable progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. States 
working together through a regional planning process, are required to 
address an agreed upon share of their contribution to visibility 
impairment in the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these requirements, appropriate regional haze 
SIPs will contain measures that will achieve these emissions reductions 
and will meet the applicable visibility related requirements of section 
110(a)(2).
    As a result of the regional planning efforts in the VISTAS, all 
states in the VISTAS region contributed information used in the 
analysis of the causes of haze, and the levels of contribution from all 
sources within each state to the visibility degradation of each Class I 
area. The VISTAS States consulted in the development of reasonable 
progress goals. The modeling done by VISTAS relied on assumptions 
regarding emissions over the relevant planning period and embedded in 
these assumptions were anticipated emissions reductions in each of the 
states in VISTAS, including reductions from BART and other measures to 
be adopted as part of the State's long term strategy for addressing 
regional haze. The reasonable progress goals in the regional haze SIPs 
that have been prepared by the states in the VISTAS region are based, 
in part, on the emissions reductions from nearby states that were 
agreed on through the VISTAS process.
    West Virginia submitted a Regional Haze SIP on June 18, 2008, to 
address the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. On December 3, 
2007, West Virginia submitted its original 1997 Ozone NAAQS 
infrastructure SIP. On April 3, 2008, West Virginia submitted a 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On May 21, 2008, West 
Virginia submitted amendments to the 1997 Ozone and PM2.5 
NAAQS infrastructure submittal. On October 1, 2009, West Virginia 
submitted a 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. In the 
October 1, 2009 submittal, West Virginia indicated that its Regional 
Haze SIP would meet the requirements of the CAA, section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), regarding visibility for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. West Virginia also 
indicated it will meet the visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(J), and 
specifically references the Regional Haze SIP submitted in June. EPA 
has reviewed West Virginia's Regional Haze SIP and, as explained in 
section VI of this action, proposes to find that West Virginia's 
Regional Haze submittal meets the portions of the requirements of the 
CAA sections 110(a)(2) relating to visibility protection for the 1997 
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail 
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit 
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform 
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire 
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy 
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using 
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then 
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. 
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in 
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview 
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the 
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
deciview.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. (64 FR 35714-35725, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim 
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), 
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking 
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures 
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of 
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused 
by anthropogenic

[[Page 41162]]

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional 
haze. The national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., 
anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair 
visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as 
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically 
review progress every five years midway through each 10-year 
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine 
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired 
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of 
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate 
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress 
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by 
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause 
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based 
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how 
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in 
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance'') and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as 
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each 
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility 
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values 
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline 
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the 
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the 
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions 
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004 
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in 
visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, 
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I 
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR 
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead 
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable 
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility 
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in 
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year 
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 
least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, 
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from 
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') 
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of 
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards 
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of 
progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state 
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult 
with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states 
with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at 
the Class I state's areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \5\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for 
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil 
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity 
in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use the approach set forth in 
the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, to follow 
the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of 
sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source

[[Page 41163]]

in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility 
impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 
has stated that states should use their best judgment in determining 
whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility in Class I 
areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR and document their 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional 
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements 
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements 
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART 
controls on the source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration 
for CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide 
that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 
CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain 
subject to the CAIR FIP in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected 
BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions 
of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since 
CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, states were still required 
to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART 
for that pollutant.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the 
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable 
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected 
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, 
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided 
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional 
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address 
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states 
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) 
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) 
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; 
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including 
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) 
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) 
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in 
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by 
the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS 
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic 
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years 
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, 
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, 
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a 
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state 
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze 
SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating 
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule 
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's 
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be 
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I Federal Areas within the state. The strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for 
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through 
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, (i.e., review and use of 
monitoring data from the network). The monitoring strategy is due with 
the first

[[Page 41164]]

regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The 
monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites 
if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will 
be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and 
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs 
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior 
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must 
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of 
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer 
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development 
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. 
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it 
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must 
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and 
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is the relationship of the CAIR to the regional haze 
requirements?

A. Overview of EPA's CAIR

    CAIR, as originally promulgated, requires 28 states and the 
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and 
NOX that significantly contribute to, or interfere with 
maintenance of, the NAAQS for fine particulates and/or ozone in any 
downwind state. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR establishes 
emission budgets or caps for SO2 and NOX for 
states that contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind 
states and requires the significantly contributing states to submit SIP 
revisions that implement these budgets. States have the flexibility to 
choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, 
including participation in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs 
addressing SO2, NOX-annual, and NOX-
ozone season emissions.

B. Remand of the CAIR

    On July 11, 2008, the DC Circuit issued its decision to vacate and 
remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. See 
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Circuit 2008). However, in 
response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the court issued an order 
remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. 
The court thereby left the EPA CAIR rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in 
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values 
covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the 
court's opinion. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. The court 
directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July 11, 
2008, opinion, but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for completing 
that action. Because CAIR accordingly has been remanded to the Agency 
without vacatur, CAIR and the CAIR FIPs are currently in effect in 
subject states.

C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially Affected by the CAIR Remand

    The following is a summary of the elements of the regional haze 
SIPs that are potentially affected by the remand of CAIR. Many states 
relied on CAIR as an alternative to BART for SO2 and 
NOX for subject EGUs, as allowed under the BART provisions 
at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Additionally, several states established RPGs 
that reflect the improvement in visibility expected to result from 
controls planned for or already installed on sources within the state 
to meet the CAIR provisions for this implementation period for 
specified pollutants. Many states relied upon their own CAIR SIPs or 
the CAIR FIPs for their states to provide the legal requirements which 
leads to these planned controls, and did not include enforceable 
measures in the LTS in the regional haze SIP submission to ensure these 
reductions. States also submitted demonstrations showing that no 
additional controls on EGUs beyond CAIR would be reasonable for this 
implementation period. Due to EPA's need to address the concerns of the 
court as outlined in its decision remanding CAIR, EPA believes it would 
be inappropriate to fully approve states' LTSs that rely upon the 
emissions reductions predicted to result from CAIR to meet the BART 
requirement for EGUs or to meet the RPGs in the states' regional haze 
SIPs. For this reason, EPA cannot fully approve regional haze SIP 
revisions that rely on CAIR for emission reduction measures. EPA 
therefore proposes to grant limited approval and limited disapproval of 
the West Virginia SIP. The next section discusses how the Agency 
proposes to address these deficiencies.

D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed Limited Approval

    EPA is intending to propose to issue limited approvals of those 
regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR to address the impact of 
emissions from a state's own EGUs. Limited approval results in approval 
of the entire regional haze submission and all its elements. EPA is 
taking this approach because an affected state's SIP will be stronger 
and more protective of the environment with the implementation of those 
measures by the state and having Federal approval and enforceability 
than it would

[[Page 41165]]

without those measures being included in the state's SIP.
    EPA also intends to propose to issue limited disapprovals for 
regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR concurrently with the 
proposals for limited approval. As explained in the 1992 Calcagni 
Memorandum, ``[t]hrough a limited approval, EPA [will] concurrently, or 
within a reasonable period of time thereafter, disapprove the rule * * 
* for not meeting all of the applicable requirements of the CAA * * * 
[T]he limited disapproval is a rulemaking action, and it is subject to 
notice and comment.'' Final limited disapproval of a SIP submittal does 
not affect the Federal enforceability of the measures in the subject 
SIP revision nor prevent state implementation of these measures. The 
legal effects of the final limited disapproval are to provide EPA the 
authority to issue a FIP at any time, and to obligate the Agency to 
take such action no more than two years after the effective date of the 
final limited disapproval action.

V. What is EPA's analysis of West Virginia's regional haze submittal?

    On June 18, 2008, WVDEP submitted revisions to the West Virginia 
SIP to address regional haze in the State's Class I areas as required 
by EPA's RHR.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    West Virginia has two Class I areas within its borders: Dolly Sods 
Wilderness Area and Otter Creek Wilderness Area. West Virginia 
determined the appropriate RPGs, including consulting with other states 
that impact these two Class I areas. West Virginia is responsible for 
describing its own long-term emission strategies, its role in the 
consultation processes, and how its particular state SIP meets the 
other requirements in EPA's regional haze regulations.
    The West Virginia regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility 
improvement at each of these Class I areas and a LTS to achieve those 
RPGs within the first regional haze implementation period ending in 
2018. In developing the LTS for each area, West Virginia considered 
both emission sources inside and outside the state that may cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in West Virginia's Class I areas. 
The State also identified and considered emission sources within West 
Virginia that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class 
I areas in neighboring states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The 
VISTAS RPO worked with the State in developing the technical analyses 
used to make these determinations, including state-by-state 
contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which 
included the two areas in West Virginia and those areas affected by 
emissions from West Virginia.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, West Virginia calculated baseline/current and 
natural visibility conditions for each of its Class I areas, as 
summarized below.
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light 
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine 
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. 
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for 
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations 
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE 
monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA 
allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to 2003 EPA 
guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural 
visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is 
to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural 
concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to 
use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the 
IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\6\ The purpose of this 
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate 
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light 
extinction. West Virginia opted to use the default estimates for the 
natural concentrations combined with the ``new IMPROVE equation,'' for 
all of its areas. Using this approach, natural visibility conditions 
using the new IMPROVE equation were calculated separately for each 
Class I area by VISTAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort 
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from 
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) 
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to 
aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the 
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of 
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources 
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The 
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring 
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review 
of the science \7\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size 
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and 
organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon 
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New 
terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea 
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific 
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to 
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of 
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement 
factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium 
sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 
remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 
soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new 
IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is 
summarized in Appendix B.2 of the West Virginia Regional Haze 
submittal and in numerous published papers. See for example: Hand, 
J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for 
Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. 
March 2006. Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative 
Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. 
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, 
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to 
Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis 
Workgroup. September 2006 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    The Otter Creek Wilderness Area does not contain an IMPROVE 
monitor. In cases where onsite monitoring is not available, 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(2)(i) requires states to use the most representative 
monitoring available for the 2000-2004 period to establish baseline 
visibility conditions, in consultation with EPA. West Virginia used and 
EPA concurs with the use of 2000-2004 data from the IMPROVE monitor at 
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area for the Otter Creek Wilderness Area. The 
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area is nearest to the Otter Creek Wilderness 
Area and the areas possess similar characteristics, such as meteorology 
and topography.
    WVDEP estimated baseline visibility conditions at both West 
Virginia Class I

[[Page 41166]]

areas using available monitoring data from a single IMPROVE monitoring 
site in the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area. For the first regional haze 
SIP, baseline visibility conditions are the same as current conditions. 
A five-year average of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated 
for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days at 
each West Virginia Class I area. IMPROVE data records for Dolly Sods 
Wilderness Area for the period 2000 to 2004 meet the EPA requirements 
for data completeness, see page 2-8 of EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress 
Guidance. This data is also provided at the following Web site: http://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    For the West Virginia Class I areas, baseline visibility conditions 
on the 20 percent worst days are approximately 30 deciviews (dv). 
Natural visibility in these areas is predicted to be approximately 11 
deciviews on the 20 percent worst days. The natural and baseline 
conditions for West Virginia's Class I areas for both the 20 percent 
worst and best days are presented in Table 1, below.

    Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for the West
                         Virginia Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Average for 20%
          Class I area             worst days  (dv)     Average for 20%
                                          \9\           best days  (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Natural Background Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area......                10.4                 3.6
Otter Creek Wilderness Area.....                10.4                 3.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000-2004)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area......                29.0                12.3
Otter Creek Wilderness Area.....                29.0                12.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled, ``Technical Support Document for
  the Modeling Portions of the State of West Virginia's Regional Haze
  State Implementation Plan (SIP)'' is included in the public docket for
  this action.

4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, West Virginia considered the uniform rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve 
that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's 
Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is 
not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or 
equivalent to the glidepath.
    The State's implementation plan presents a graph for the 20 percent 
worst days, for its two Class I areas. West Virginia constructed the 
graph for the worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in accordance with EPA's 
2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line 
from the baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the 
level of visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment 
in 2064 for its two areas. West Virginia's SIP shows that the State's 
RPGs for its areas provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 
percent worst days over the period of the implementation plan and 
ensure no degradation in visibility for the 20 percent best days over 
the same period, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    For the West Virginia Class I areas, the overall visibility 
improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference 
between baseline visibility of 29.0 deciviews for the 20 percent worst 
days and natural conditions of 10.4 deciviews, i.e., 18.6 deciviews. 
Over the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an 
average improvement of 0.31 deciviews per year to reach natural 
conditions. Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in order 
to achieve visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform 
rate of progress for the 20 percent worst days at Dolly Sods Wilderness 
Area and the Otter Creek Wilderness Area, West Virginia would need to 
project at least 4.3 deciviews over the first implementation period 
(i.e., 0.31 deciviews x 14 years = 4.3 deciviews) of visibility 
improvement from the 29.0 deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in 
visibility levels at or below 24.7 deciviews in 2018. West Virginia 
projects a 7.3 deciview improvement to visibility from the 29.0 
deciview baseline to 21.7 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most 
impaired days, and a 1.2 deciview improvement to 11.1 deciviews from 
the baseline visibility of 12.3 deciviews for the 20 percent least 
impaired days.

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

    The LTS is a compilation of state-specific control measures relied 
on by the state for achieving its RPGs. West Virginia's LTS for the 
first implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from 
Federal, State, and Local controls that take effect in the State from 
the end of the baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The West 
Virginia LTS was developed by the State, in coordination with the 
VISTAS RPO, through an evaluation of the following components: (1) 
Identification of the emission units within West Virginia and in 
surrounding states that likely have the largest impacts currently on 
visibility at the State's two Class I areas; (2) estimation of 
emissions reductions for 2018 based on all controls required or 
expected under Federal and State regulations for the 2004-2018 period 
(including BART); (3) comparison of projected visibility improvement 
with the uniform rate of progress for the State's Class I areas; and 
(4) application of the four statutory factors in the reasonable 
progress analysis for the identified emission units to determine if 
additional reasonable controls were required.
    CAIR is also an element of West Virginia's LTS. CAIR rule revisions 
were approved into the West Virginia SIP in 2007 and 2009. See 72 FR 
71576 (December 18, 2007 and 74 FR 38536 (August 4, 2009). West 
Virginia opted to rely on CAIR emission reduction requirements to 
satisfy the BART requirements for SO2 and NOX 
from EGUs. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore, West Virginia only 
required its BART-eligible EGUs to evaluate PM emissions for 
determining whether they are subject to BART, and, if applicable,

[[Page 41167]]

for performing a BART control assessment. Additionally, West Virginia 
concluded that no additional controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for 
reasonable progress for its EGUs for this first implementation period. 
Prior to the remand of CAIR, EPA believed the State's reliance on CAIR 
for specific BART and reasonable progress provisions affecting its EGUs 
was adequate, as detailed later in this notice. As explained in section 
VI of this notice, the EPA proposes today to issue a limited approval 
and a proposed limited disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP 
revision.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical 
analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from West Virginia. 
The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions 
and applying reductions expected from Federal and State regulations 
affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants 
NOX, PM, and SO2. The BART Guidelines direct 
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3 
impair visibility in their Class I area(s). VISTAS performed modeling 
sensitivity analyses, which demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions 
of VOC and NH3 do not significantly impair visibility in the 
VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions inventories were also developed 
for NH3 and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC reductions were 
incorporated into West Virginia's regional haze analyses, West Virginia 
did not further evaluate NH3 and VOC emissions sources for 
potential controls under BART or reasonable progress.
    VISTAS developed emissions for five inventory source 
classifications: Stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-
road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point sources are 
those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year, 
depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the facility level. 
Stationary area sources are those sources whose individual emissions 
are relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the 
collective emissions from the source category could be significant. 
VISTAS estimated emissions on a countywide level for the inventory 
categories of: (a) Stationary area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) 
mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can move but does not use the 
roadways); and (c) biogenic sources (which are natural sources of 
emissions, such as trees). On-road mobile source emissions are 
estimated by vehicle type and road type, and are summed to the 
countywide level.
    There are many Federal and State control programs being implemented 
that VISTAS and West Virginia anticipate will reduce emissions between 
the end of the baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these 
control programs are projected to achieve substantial visibility 
improvement by 2018 in the West Virginia Class I areas. The control 
programs relied upon by West Virginia include CAIR; the NOX 
SIP Call; North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act; Georgia multi-
pollutant rule; consent agreements for Santee Cooper, Tampa Electric, 
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Gulf Power, East Kentucky Power 
Cooperative, Dupont, West Point Paper Mill, Alabama Power, American 
Electric Power; Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel (2007) engine standards 
for on-road trucks and busses; Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for on-
road vehicles; Federal large spark ignition and recreational vehicle 
controls; and EPA's non-road diesel rules.
    Controls from various Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
(MACT) rules were also utilized in the development of the 2018 emission 
inventory projections. These MACT rules include the industrial boiler/
process heater MACT (referred to as ``Industrial Boiler MACT''), the 
combustion turbine and reciprocating internal combustion engines MACTs, 
and the VOC 2, 4, 7, and 10-year MACT standards.
    On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals mandated the 
vacatur and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\8\ This MACT was 
vacated since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the 
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Definition 
Rule. Notwithstanding the vacatur of this rule, the VISTAS states, 
including West Virginia, decided to leave these controls in the 
modeling for their regional haze SIPs since it is believed that by 
2018, EPA will have re-promulgated an industrial boiler MACT rule or 
the states will have addressed the issue through state-level case-by-
case MACT reviews in accordance with section 112(j) of the CAA. EPA 
finds this approach acceptable for the following reasons. EPA proposed 
a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on June 4, 
2010 (75 FR 32006), and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 
15608), giving West Virginia time to assure the required controls are 
in place prior to the end of the first implementation period in 2018. 
In the absence of an established MACT rule for boilers and process 
heaters, the statutory language in section 112(j) of the CAA specifies 
a schedule for the incorporation of enforceable MACT-equivalent limits 
into the title V operating permits of affected sources. Should 
circumstances warrant the need to implement section 112(j) of the CAA 
for industrial boilers, we would expect, in this case, that compliance 
with case-by-case MACT limits for industrial boilers would occur no 
later than January 2015, which is well before the 2018 RPGs for 
regional haze. In addition, the RHR requires that any resulting 
differences between emissions projections and actual emissions 
reductions that may occur will be addressed during the five-year review 
prior to the next 2018 regional haze SIP. The expected reductions due 
to the original, vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule were relatively 
small compared to the State's total SO2, PM2.5, 
and coarse particulate matter (PM10) emissions in 2018 
(i.e., 0.5 to 1.5 percent, depending on the pollutant, of the projected 
2018 SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 inventory), 
and not likely to affect any of West Virginia's modeling conclusions. 
Thus, if there is a need to address discrepancies such that projected 
emissions reductions from the now-vacated Industrial Boiler MACT were 
greater than actual reductions achieved by the replacement MACT, we 
would not expect that this would affect the adequacy of the existing 
West Virginia regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below, in Tables 2 and 3, are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 
2018 estimated emission inventories for West Virginia.

[[Page 41168]]



                           Table 2--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for West Virginia
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   VOC        NH3        PM10      PM2.5       NOX        SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................     15,775        453     22,076     15,523    277,589    570,153
Area..........................................     60,443      9,963    115,346     21,049     12,687     11,667
On-Road Mobile................................     45,284      2,036      1,481      1,068     63,525      2,635
Non-Road Mobile...............................     18,566          9      1,850      1,728     33,329      2,112
Biogenics.....................................    357,850        N/A        N/A        N/A      2,776        N/A
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................    499,976     12,461    143,771     42,385    390,703    586,568
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* N/A--Not applicable.


                           Table 3--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for West Virginia
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   VOC        NH3        PM10      PM2.5       NOX        SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................     17,952        593     28,084     20,165     94,600    177,517
Area (includes fires).........................     62,806     11,504    124,566     24,507     15,716     12,849
On-Road Mobile................................     14,652      2,268        747        369     15,530        231
Non-road Mobile...............................     14,086         13      1,292      1,198     25,710         56
Biogenics.....................................    357,850        N/A        N/A        N/A      2,776        N/A
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................    467,347     14,377    154,688     46,239    154,332    190,653
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for 
Uniform Rate of Progress
    VISTAS performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 10 
southeastern states, including West Virginia. The modeling analysis is 
a complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the 
modeling system. VISTAS used the following modeling system:
     Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model 
is a nonhydrostatic, prognostic meteorological model routinely used for 
urban- and regional-scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional 
haze regulatory modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 
Emissions modeling system is an emissions modeling system that 
generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of mobile, non-road 
mobile, area, point, fire and biogenic emission sources for 
photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale 
Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model 
capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a 
regional scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was 
CMAQ, version 4.5. It was modified through VISTAS with a module for 
Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open and transparent manner that was 
also subjected to outside peer review.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the VISTAS region for 2002 and 
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12 x 12 kilometer (km) cells that 
covers the 10 VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West 
Virginia) and states adjacent to them. This grid is nested within a 
larger national CMAQ modeling grid of 36 x 36 km grid cells that covers 
the continental United States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and 
portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the east and west 
coasts. Selection of a representative period of meteorology is crucial 
for evaluating baseline air quality conditions and projecting future 
changes in air quality due to changes in emissions of visibility-
impairing pollutants. VISTAS conducted an in-depth analysis which 
resulted in the selection of the entire year of 2002 (January 1-
December 31) as the best period of meteorology available for conducting 
the CMAQ modeling. The VISTAS states modeling was developed consistent 
with EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for 
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, 
PM2.5, and Regional Haze, located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/B-07-
002), April 2007, and EPA document, Emissions Inventory Guidance for 
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, located at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001, 
August 2005, updated November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
    VISTAS examined the model performance of the regional modeling for 
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results 
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and 
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts 
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support 
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those 
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the 
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated 
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone, 
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks 
and databases for the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a diverse set of 
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and 
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once VISTAS determined the model 
performance to be acceptable, VISTAS used the model to assess the 2018 
RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling 
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of West Virginia 
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required 
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and 
modeling used to

[[Page 41169]]

develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are consistent with EPA's 
RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA accepts the 
VISTAS technical modeling to support the LTS and determine visibility 
improvement for the uniform rate of progress because the modeling 
system was chosen and simulated according to EPA Modeling Guidance. 
EPA's analysis of VISTAS modeling procedures and results is in the 
accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD).\9\ EPA agrees with the 
VISTAS model performance procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is 
an appropriate tool for the regional haze assessments for the West 
Virginia LTS and regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled, ``Technical Support 
Document for the Modeling Portions of the State of West Virginia's 
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)'' is included in the 
public docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, Source 
Categories, and Geographic Areas
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures 
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment 
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further 
reducing emissions from different pollutants, source sectors, and 
geographic areas, VISTAS developed emission sensitivity model runs 
using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various 
groups of emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the 
20 percent worst visibility days.
    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting 
visibility in the VISTAS region, VISTAS' contribution assessment, based 
on IMPROVE monitoring data, demonstrated that ammonium sulfate is the 
major contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at 
Class I areas in the VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 20 percent 
worst visibility days in 2000-2004, ammonium sulfate accounted for 
greater than 70 percent of the calculated light extinction at Class I 
areas in the Southern Appalachians. In particular, for Dolly Sods 
Wilderness Area, sulfate particles resulting from SO2 
emissions contribute roughly 80 percent to the calculated light 
extinction on the haziest days. In contrast, ammonium nitrate 
contributed less than five percent of the calculated light extinction 
at VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days. 
Particulate organic matter (organic carbon) accounted for 10-20 percent 
of light extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
    VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas into two types, either 
``coastal'' or ``inland'' (sometimes referred to as ``mountain'') 
sites, based on common/similar characteristics (e.g. terrain, 
geography, meteorology), to better represent variations in model 
sensitivity and performance within the VISTAS region, and to describe 
the common factors influencing visibility conditions in the two types 
of Class I areas. West Virginia's Class I areas are both ``inland'' 
areas.
    Results from VISTAS' emission sensitivity analyses indicate that 
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions are the 
dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst 
days at all Class I areas in VISTAS, including the two West Virginia 
areas. West Virginia concluded that reducing SO2 emissions 
from EGU and non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS states would have the 
greatest visibility benefits for the West Virginia Class I areas. 
Because ammonium nitrate is a small contributor to PM2.5 
mass and visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst days at the 
inland Class I areas in VISTAS, which include Dolly Sods Wilderness 
Area and Otter Creek Wilderness Area, the benefits of reducing 
NOX and NH3 emissions at these sites are small.
    The VISTAS sensitivity analyses show that VOC emissions from 
biogenic sources such as vegetation also contribute to visibility 
impairment. However, control of these biogenic sources of VOC would be 
extremely difficult, if not impossible. The anthropogenic sources of 
VOC emissions are minor compared to the biogenic sources. Therefore, 
controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions would have little if 
any visibility benefits at the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, 
including West Virginia. The sensitivity analyses also show that 
reducing primary carbon from point sources, ground level sources, or 
fires is projected to have small to no visibility benefit at the VISTAS 
Class I areas.
    West Virginia considered the factors listed in 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(v) to develop its LTS, as described below. West Virginia, 
in conjunction with VISTAS, demonstrated in its SIP that elemental 
carbon (a product of highway and non-road diesel engines, agricultural 
burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires), fine soils (a product of 
construction activities and activities that generate fugitive dust), 
and ammonia are relatively minor contributors to visibility impairment 
at the Class I areas in West Virginia. WVDEP is not adopting any 
additional controls on agricultural fires, prescribed fires, and 
wildfires, but does have a rule in place, Regulation 45CSR6--To Prevent 
and Control Air Pollution from Combustion of Refuse (74 FR 12560, March 
25, 2009), which adopted revisions to include a provision for 
prescribed burning. In addition, the WVDEP has a number of rules in 
place that require the control of fugitive dust within plant 
boundaries, these include Regulation 45CSR2--To Prevent and Control 
Particulate Air Pollution from Combustion of Fuel in Indirect Heat 
Exchangers (68 FR 47473, August 11, 2003); Regulation 45CSR3--To 
Prevent and Control Air Pollution from the Operation of Hot Mix Asphalt 
Plants (67 FR 63270, October 11, 2002); Regulation 45CSR5--To Prevent 
and Control Air Pollution from the Operation of Coal Preparation 
Plants, Coal Handling Operations and Coal Refuse Disposal Areas (67 FR 
62379, October 7, 2002); and Regulation 45CSR7--To Prevent and Control 
Particulate Matter Air (68 FR 33010, June 3, 2003). EPA concurs with 
the State's technical demonstration showing that elemental carbon, fine 
soils, and ammonia are not significant contributors to visibility in 
the State's Class I areas, and therefore, finds that West Virginia has 
adequately satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by VISTAS predict that 
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial 
point sources will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in 
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, more than any other visibility-
impairing pollutant. Specific to West Virginia, the VISTAS sensitivity 
analysis projects visibility benefits in Dolly Sods Wilderness Area and 
Otter Creek Wilderness Area from SO2 reductions from EGUs in 
eight of the 10 VISTAS states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. 
Additional, smaller benefits are projected from SO2 emission 
reductions from non-utility industrial point sources. SO2 
emissions contributions to visibility impairment from other RPO regions 
are comparatively small in contrast to the VISTAS states' 
contributions, and thus, controlling sources outside of the VISTAS 
region is predicted to provide less significant improvements in 
visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS.
    Taking the VISTAS sensitivity analyses results into consideration, 
West Virginia concluded that reducing SO2 emissions from EGU 
and non-EGU point sources in certain VISTAS states would have the 
greatest visibility benefits for the West Virginia Class I

[[Page 41170]]

areas. The State chose to focus solely on evaluating certain 
SO2 sources contributing to visibility impairment to the 
State's Class I areas for additional emission reductions for reasonable 
progress in this first implementation period. EPA agrees with the 
State's analyses and conclusions used to determine the pollutants and 
source categories that most contribute to visibility impairment in the 
West Virginia Class I areas, and finds the State's approach to focus on 
developing a LTS that includes largely additional measures for point 
sources of SO2 emissions to be appropriate.
    SO2 sources for which it is demonstrated that no 
additional controls are reasonable in this current implementation 
period will not be exempted from future assessments for controls in 
subsequent implementation periods or, when appropriate, from the five-
year periodic SIP reviews. In future implementation periods, additional 
controls on these SO2 sources evaluated in the first 
implementation period may be determined to be reasonable, based on a 
reasonable progress control evaluation, for continued progress toward 
natural conditions for the 20 percent worst days and to avoid further 
degradation of the 20 percent best days. Similarly, in subsequent 
implementation periods, the State may use different criteria for 
identifying sources for evaluation and may consider other pollutants as 
visibility conditions change over time.
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable 
Progress Controls in West Virginia and Surrounding Areas
    Through comprehensive evaluations by VISTAS and the Southern 
Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI),\10\ the VISTAS states 
concluded that sulfate particles resulting from SO2 
emissions account for the greatest portion of the regional haze 
affecting the Class I areas in VISTAS states, including those in West 
Virginia. Utility and non-utility boilers are the main sources of 
SO2 emissions within the southeastern United States. VISTAS 
developed a methodology for West Virginia, which enables the State to 
focus its reasonable progress analysis on those geographic regions and 
source categories that impact visibility at each of its Class I areas. 
Recognizing that there was neither sufficient time nor adequate 
resources available to evaluate all emission units within a given area 
of influence (AOI) around each Class I area that West Virginia's 
sources impact, the State established a threshold to determine which 
emission units would be evaluated for reasonable progress control. In 
applying this methodology, WVDEP first calculated the fractional 
contribution to visibility impairment from all emission units within 
the SO2 AOI for each of its Class I areas, and those 
surrounding areas in other states potentially impacted by emissions 
from emission units in West Virginia. The State then identified those 
emission units with a contribution of one percent or more to the 
visibility impairment at that particular Class I area, and evaluated 
each of these units for control measures for reasonable progress, using 
the following four ``reasonable progress factors'' as required under 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of compliance; (ii) time necessary for 
compliance; (iii) energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance; and (iv) remaining useful life of the emission unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated in a 
voluntary regional partnership ``to identify and recommend 
reasonable measures to remedy existing and prevent future adverse 
effects from human-induced air pollution on the air quality related 
values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.'' States cooperated 
with FLMs, the USEPA, industry, environmental organizations, and 
academia to complete a technical assessment of the impacts of acid 
deposition, ozone, and fine particles on sensitive resources in the 
Southern Appalachians. The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August 
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    West Virginia's SO2 AOI methodology captured greater 
than 64 percent of the total point source SO2 contribution 
to visibility impairment in the two Class I areas in West Virginia, and 
required an evaluation of 17 emission units. Capturing a significantly 
greater percentage of the total contribution would involve an 
evaluation of many more emission units that have substantially less 
impact. EPA believes the approach developed by VISTAS and implemented 
for the Class I areas in West Virginia is a reasonable methodology to 
prioritize the most significant contributors to regional haze and to 
identify sources to assess for reasonable progress control in the 
State's Class I areas. The approach is consistent with EPA's Reasonable 
Progress Guidance. The technical approach of VISTAS and West Virginia 
was objective and based on several analyses, which included a large 
universe of emission units within and surrounding the State of West 
Virginia and all of the 18 VISTAS Class I areas. It also included an 
analysis of the VISTAS emission units affecting nearby Class I areas 
surrounding the VISTAS states that are located in other RPOs' Class I 
areas.
5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable Progress 
Analysis
    WVDEP identified 17 EGU units with SO2 emissions that 
were above the State's minimum threshold for reasonable progress 
evaluation because they were modeled to fall within the sulfate AOI of 
any Class I area and have a one percent or greater contribution to the 
sulfate visibility impairment to at least one Class I area.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See also West Virginia SIP Appendix H fractional 
contribution analysis tables for each Class I Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Facilities With an Emissions Unit Subject to Reasonable Progress 
Analysis
    Only one facility was a non-EGU that was subject to the four factor 
reasonable progress analysis. That facility is Capitol Cement which 
showed a greater than 1% contribution to Shenandoah National Park in 
Virginia. WVDEP analyzed whether SO2 controls should be 
required for one facility, Capitol Cement, based on a consideration of 
the four factors set out in the CAA and EPA's regulations. For the 
limited purpose of evaluating the cost of compliance for the reasonable 
progress assessment in this first regional haze SIP for the non-EGUs, 
WVDEP concluded that it was not equitable to require non-EGUs to bear a 
greater economic burden than EGUs for a given control strategy. Using 
the CAIR rule as a guide, a cost of $2,000 per ton of SO2 
controlled or reduced was used as a determiner of cost effectiveness.
    Capitol Cement is a portland cement manufacturing facility. Only 
Kiln 7 at Capitol Cement was identified as requiring reasonable 
progress analysis since Kilns 8 and 9 were replaced in 2002. WVDEP 
determined that the new preheater kiln should also be reviewed with 
respect to reasonable progress. VISTAS contracted with Alpine 
Geophysics to evaluate control options and costs for sources within AOI 
for the Class I areas of concern, including Capitol Cement. Alpine used 
EPA's Air ControlNet software to evaluate control options and costs for 
controls on Kiln 7. The control option identified was flue gas 
desulfurization (FGD) with a cost effectiveness of $25,266 per ton, 
which exceeds the State's $2,000 cost-effectiveness threshold for 
reasonableness. For the precalciner system, the control options and 
costs for controls were developed by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO through a contract with MACTEC, Inc., 
and published in the project report, Assessment of Reasonable Progress 
for Regional Haze In MANE-VU Class I Areas, dated July

[[Page 41171]]

9, 2007. WVDEP used this report for considering other control options 
and costs. The control options evaluated were Dry FGD, West FGD, and 
Advanced FGD. The cost per ton of SO2 removed ranged from 
$9,700-$72,800. All control options are well above the State's $2,000 
cost-effectiveness threshold for reasonableness. The other statutory 
factors: (1) Time of necessary for compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and (3) the remaining 
useful life of the emissions unit, were deemed not applicable, since 
there were no cost effective controls to evaluate.
    As noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, the states have 
wide latitude to determine appropriate additional control requirements 
for ensuring reasonable progress, and there are many ways for a state 
to approach identification of additional reasonable measures. In 
determining reasonable progress, states must consider, at a minimum, 
the four statutory factors, but states have flexibility in how to take 
these factors into consideration.
    West Virginia applied the methodology developed by VISTAS for 
identifying appropriate sources to be considered for additional 
controls under reasonable progress for the implementation period 
addressed by this SIP, which ends in 2018. Using this methodology, 
WVDEP first identified those emissions and emissions units most likely 
to have an impact on visibility in the State's Class I areas. Units 
with emissions of SO2 with a relative contribution to 
visibility impairment of at least a one percent contribution at any 
Class I area were then subject to further analysis to determine whether 
it would be appropriate to require controls on these units for purposes 
of reasonable progress. As noted above, of the emission units in West 
Virginia, one unit was subject to this analysis. WVDEP concluded, based 
on their evaluation of Capitol Cement, that no further controls were 
warranted at this time.
    Having reviewed WVDEP's methodology and analyses presented in the 
SIP materials prepared by WVDEP, EPA is proposing to approve West 
Virginia's conclusion that no further controls are reasonable for this 
implementation period for the reviewed sources. EPA agrees with the 
State's approach of identifying the key pollutants contributing to 
visibility impairment at its Class I areas, and consider their 
methodology to identify sources of SO2 most likely to have 
an impact on visibility on any Class I area, to be an appropriate 
methodology for narrowing the scope of the State's analysis. In 
general, EPA also finds West Virginia's evaluation of the four 
statutory factors for reasonable progress to be reasonable. Although 
the use of a specific threshold for assessing costs means that West 
Virginia may not have fully considered other available emissions 
reduction measures above their threshold, EPA believes that the West 
Virginia SIP still ensures reasonable progress. EPA notes that given 
the emissions reductions resulting from CAIR, West Virginia's BART 
determinations, and the measures in nearby states, the visibility 
improvements projected for the affected Class I areas are in excess of 
that needed to be on the uniform rate of progress glidepath. In 
considering West Virginia's approach, EPA is also proposing to place 
great weight on the fact that there is no indication in the SIP 
submittal that West Virginia, as a result of using a specific cost 
effectiveness threshold, rejected potential reasonable progress 
measures that would have had a meaningful impact on visibility in its 
Class I areas. In addition, EPA finds that West Virginia fully 
evaluated, in terms of the four reasonable progress factors, all 
control technologies available at the time of its analysis and 
applicable to these facilities.
b. Emission Units Exempted From Preparing a Reasonable Progress Control 
Analysis
    Seventeen emission units identified for a reasonable progress 
control analysis are EGUs. These EGUs are subject to CAIR and were also 
found to be subject to BART. These EGUs are Allegheny Energy--Ft. 
Martin, Harrison, and Pleasants; AEP-Appalachian Power-John Amos and 
Mountaineer; and Dominion-Mt. Storm.
    To determine whether any additional controls beyond those required 
by CAIR would be considered reasonable for West Virginia's EGUs for 
this first implementation period, WVDEP evaluated the SO2 
reductions expected from the EGU sector. The EGUs located in West 
Virginia are expected to reduce their 2002 SO2 emissions by 
approximately 78 percent by 2018. WVDEP believes it has an accurate 
understanding of where EGU emission reductions will occur in West 
Virginia based upon existing and planned installations of post 
combustion controls for the afore mentioned EGUs, that are or will be 
controlled with greater than 90% efficiency.
    To further evaluate whether CAIR requirements will satisfy 
reasonable progress for SO2 for EGUs, WVDEP considered the 
four reasonable progress factors set forth in EPA's RHR as they apply 
to the State's entire EGU sector for available control technologies. 
The State also reviewed CAIR requirements that include 2015 as the 
``earliest reasonable deadline for compliance'' for EGUs installing 
retrofits, see (70 FR 25162, 25197-25198, May 12, 2005). This is a 
particularly relevant consideration because CAIR addresses the 
reasonable progress factors of cost and time necessary for compliance. 
In the preamble to CAIR, EPA recognized there are a number of factors 
that influence compliance with the emission reduction requirements set 
forth in CAIR, which make the 2015 compliance date reasonable. For 
example, each EGU retrofit requires a large pool of specialized labor 
resources, which exist in limited quantities. In addition, retrofitting 
an EGU is a very capital-intensive venture and, therefore, undertaken 
with caution. Hence, allowing retrofits to be installed over time 
enables the industry to learn from early installations. Lastly, EGU 
retrofits over time minimize disruption of the power grid by enabling 
industry to take advantage of planned outages.
    Since EPA made the determination in CAIR that the earliest 
reasonable deadline for compliance for reducing emissions was 2015, 
WVDEP concluded that the emission reductions required by CAIR 
constitute reasonable measures for West Virginia EGUs during this first 
assessment period (between baseline and 2018). In addition, WVDEP notes 
that while the reasonable progress evaluation only applies to existing 
sources, the State will continue to follow the visibility analysis 
requirements as part of all new major source new source review (NSR) 
and PSD permitting actions.
    Prior to the CAIR remand by the D.C. Circuit, EPA believed the 
State's demonstration that no additional controls beyond CAIR are 
reasonable for SO2 for affected EGUs for the first 
implementation period to be acceptable on the basis that the CAIR 
requirements, reflected the most cost-effective controls that can be 
achieved over the CAIR SO2 compliance timeframe, which spans 
out to 2015. However, the State's demonstration regarding CAIR and 
reasonable progress for EGUs, and other provisions in this SIP 
revision, are based on CAIR and thus, the Agency proposes today to 
issue a limited approval and a limited disapproval of the State's 
regional haze SIP revision.
6. BART
    BART is an element of West Virginia's LTS for the first 
implementation period. The BART evaluation process consists

[[Page 41172]]

of three components: (a) An identification of all the BART-eligible 
sources, (b) an assessment of whether the BART-eligible sources are 
subject to BART, and (c) a determination of the BART controls. These 
components, as addressed by WVDEP and WVDEP's findings, are discussed 
below.
a. BART-Eligible Sources
    The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. WVDEP identified the 
BART-eligible sources in West Virginia by utilizing the three 
eligibility criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's 
regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emission units at the 
facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART 
Guidelines; (2) emission unit(s) was constructed on or after August 6, 
1962, and was in existence prior to August 6, 1977; and (3) potential 
emissions of any visibility-impairing pollutant from subject units are 
250 tons or more per year.
    The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO2, 
NOX and direct PM (including both PM10 and 
PM2.5) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants, and to 
exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from 
a source impair visibility in an area (70 FR 39160). VISTAS modeling 
demonstrated that VOC from anthropogenic sources and ammonia from point 
sources are not significant visibility-impairing pollutants in West 
Virginia. WVDEP has determined, based on the VISTAS modeling, that VOC 
and ammonia emissions from the State's point sources are not 
anticipated to cause or contribute significantly to any impairment of 
visibility in Class I areas and should be exempt for BART purposes.
b. BART-Subject Sources
    The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those 
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to 
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review 
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute 
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the 
BART Guidelines, West Virginia required each of its BART-eligible 
sources to develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent 
of their contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I 
areas.
    The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF \12\ modeling 
system or another appropriate model to predict the visibility impacts 
from a single source on a Class I area, and to therefore, determine 
whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or contribute to 
impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is subject to 
BART.'' The Guidelines state that EPA believes CALPUFF is the best 
regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting a 
single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162). 
West Virginia, in coordination with VISTAS, used the CALPUFF modeling 
system to determine whether individual sources in West Virginia were 
subject to or exempt from BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire 
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different 
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST, 
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the 
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF 
modeling system are available from the model developer on the 
following Web site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling 
protocol for making individual source attributions, and suggest that 
states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues 
prior to modeling. The VISTAS states, including West Virginia, 
developed a ``Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART 
Analyses.'' Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, 
trade groups, and other interested parties, actively participated in 
the development and review of the VISTAS protocol. VISTAS developed a 
post-processing approach to use the new IMPROVE equation with the 
CALPUFF model results so that the BART analyses could consider both the 
old and new IMPROVE equations.
    For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to 
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set 
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single 
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at 
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``A single source that 
is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered 
to `cause' visibility impairment.'' The BART Guidelines also state that 
``the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source 
`contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across 
states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for 
determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment 
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' The Guidelines affirm that 
states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the 
location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a 
Class I area justifies this approach.
    West Virginia used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for 
determining which sources are subject to BART. EPA agrees with the 
State's rationale for choosing this threshold value. The results of the 
visibility impacts modeling demonstrated that the majority of the 
individual BART-eligible sources had visibility impacts well below 0.5 
deciview.
    West Virginia initially identified twenty-two BART-eligible 
sources. The State subsequently determined that nineteen sources are 
exempt from being considered BART-eligible. Nineteen of the twenty-two 
sources were able to demonstrate exemptions with modeling 
demonstrations. Table 4 identifies the nineteen BART-exempt facilities 
located in West Virginia, and identifies the three sources subject to 
BART.

    Table 4--West Virginia BART-Eligible and Subject-to-BART Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion--Mt. Storm.\13\
PPG Industries.
Capitol Cement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to BART
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU CAIR and BART Modeling Sources:
  AEP-Appalachian Power Co.--John Amos.
  AEP-Ohio Power Co.--Mitchell.
  AEP-Appalachian Power Co.--Mountaineer.
  Allegheny Energy--Ft. Martin.
  Allegheny Energy--Harrison.
  Allegheny Energy--Pleasants.
Non-EGU BART Modeling:
  Mittal Steel USA--Weirton, Inc.
  Mountain State Carbon.
  ERGON Corp.--West Virginia, Inc.
  Century Aluminum.
  DuPont Belle.
  Clearon.
  Pocahontas Coal Co.--Eastern Gulf Prep Plant.
  GE Woodmark.
  Pinnacle Mining--No. 50 Coal Prep Plant.
  Kepler Processing.
  Bayer.

[[Page 41173]]

 
  Columbia Chemicals.
  Cabot Corporation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    West Virginia found that three of its BART-eligible sources (i.e., 
Dominion--Mt. Storm, PPG Industries, and Capitol Cement) had modeled 
visibility impacts of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold for BART 
exemption. These three facilities are considered to be subject to BART 
and submitted State permit applications including their proposed BART 
determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. West Virginia 
relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX 
for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, 
SO2 and NOX were not analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although PPG Industries initially modeled a visibility impact 
greater than 0.5 deciviews on multiple Class I areas, PPG Industries 
elected to accept a permit limit on its BART eligible unit, which 
reduces its visibility impact to below the exemption threshold of 0.5 
deciviews of impact at any Class I area. Therefore, PPG Industries is 
now considered BART exempt.
    The remaining nineteen sources demonstrated that they are exempt 
from being subject to BART by modeling less than a 0.5 deciview 
visibility impact at the affected Class I areas. The seven BART-
eligible EGUs only modeled PM10 emissions because West 
Virginia relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and 
NOX for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(4). Six out of the seven EGUs modeling demonstrated that 
PM10 emissions do not contribute to visibility impairment in 
any Class I area. Modeling at the Dominion--Mt. Storm, on the other 
hand, demonstrated that its PM10 emissions exceeded the 0.5 
deciview contribution threshold and thus, required a BART analysis. 
Prior to the CAIR remand, the State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART 
for NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs was fully 
approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, as 
explained in section IV of this notice, the BART assessments for CAIR 
EGUs for NOX and SO2 and other provisions in this 
SIP revision are based on CAIR, and thus, the Agency proposes today to 
issue a limited approval and a limited disapproval of the State's June 
18, 2008, regional haze SIP revision.
c. BART Determinations
    Dominion--Mt. Storm has modeled visibility impacts of more than the 
0.5 deciview threshold for BART exemption and, therefore, is considered 
to be subject to BART for PM10 only. Capitol Cement did not 
submit an exemption modeling demonstration because the BART unit is 
scheduled to be replaced. Since these two facilities did not 
demonstrate that they are exempt from BART, each one submitted to the 
State, permit applications that included their proposed BART 
determinations.
    In accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine the level of 
control that represents BART for each source, the State first reviewed 
existing controls on these units to assess whether these constituted 
the best controls currently available, then identified what other 
technically feasible controls are available, and finally, evaluated the 
technically feasible controls using the five BART statutory factors. 
The State's evaluations and conclusions, and EPA's assessment, are 
summarized below.
    Dominion--Mt. Storm is an EGU containing three BART-subject units 
and is only subject to BART for PM10. Units 1, 2, and 3 are 
subject to BART. The current PM controls of electrostatic precipitator 
(ESP) and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) were determined to satisfy 
BART, however, the allowable PM10 emission rate was lowered 
from 0.05 pounds per million british thermal units (lb/mmBtu) to 0.03 
lb/mmBtu, resulting in a reduction of up to 508 tons per year (tpy) per 
unit, or maximum reduction of 1524 tpy. The EPS and FGD must aggregate 
99.5 percent PM10 removal efficiency. The compliance date 
for Dominion--Mt. Storm is December 13, 2007 for BART controls.
    The three emission units at Dominion--Mt. Storm are also subject to 
the EPA CAIR. Dominion--Mt. Storm has already installed scrubbers and 
NOX controls on the emission units at this facility. West 
Virginia has opted to rely on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 
and NOX for its EGUs subject to CAIR, as allowed by 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(4).
    Once the BART limits are established, the source is then required 
by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(v) to maintain the control equipment required 
and establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated 
and maintained. For Dominion--Mt. Storm, Units 1, 2, and 3 are required 
to calculate the potential particulate matter emissions on a daily 
basis using the monitoring procedures and calculation methodology 
outlined in Regulation 45 CSR 2's monitoring plan. Dominion--Mt. Storm 
shall record any instance of calculated emissions in excess of the 
limits given above and any corrective actions taken. Dominion--Mt. 
Storm shall also maintain and operate, at all reasonable times, 
appropriate equipment on the ESP and FGD, to continuously monitor the 
performance of each control device. PM10 testing is done in 
accordance with the schedule listed in Regulation 45 CSR 2.
    EPA agrees with WVDEP's analyses and conclusions for the BART 
emission units located at Dominion--Mt. Storm. EPA has reviewed the 
West Virginia analyses and concluded they were conducted in a manner 
that is consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines. Therefore, the 
conclusions reflect a reasonable application of EPA's guidance to this 
source.
    PPG Industries elected to accept a permit limit on its BART 
eligible unit which reduces its visibility impact to below the 
exemption threshold of 0.5 deciview impact at any Class I area. 
Therefore, PPG is considered BART exempt. PPG Industries has taken a 
BART limit of 1478.8 pounds per hour (lbs/hour) on Boiler 5 and the 
total SO2 emissions from Boilers 3, 4, and 5 shall not 
exceed 3766.8 lbs/hour. PPG Industries is required to get 4690.56 tpy 
of SO2 emission reductions from Boiler 5 by May 1, 2008. EPA 
agrees with WVDEP's conclusion that PPG Industries is now BART-exempt 
based on the threshold of 0.5 deciview impact sited in EPA's BART 
guidance.
    Capitol Cement is a Portland cement manufacturing facility located 
in Martinsburg, WV that previously applied for and had been granted a 
PSD permit. The PSD permit was for the replacement of two existing long 
wet process cement kilns and associated clinker coolers with a modern 
precalciner system and associated equipment. The only BART-eligible 
unit at the facility, Kiln 9, is one of the two kilns being replaced, 
and the permit includes a requirement for the permanent shutdown of the 
existing kilns.
    WVDEP has determined no additional controls would need to be 
installed on Kiln 9 since the PSD permit requires a permanent shutdown 
of the existing kiln by the BART compliance deadline, or when full-
production was achieved with the replacement kiln, or no later than 180 
days after startup. The modifications at Capitol Cement are expected to 
result in 1741.51 tpy of SO2 reductions, 1374.81 tpy of 
NOX reductions, and 66.01 tpy of PM10 reductions. 
EPA agrees with WVDEP's conclusions for BART for the Capitol Cement 
facility: That no additional controls need to be installed prior to 
permanent shutdown of Kiln 9.
    The BART determinations for each of the facilities discussed above 
and the resulting BART emission limits were

[[Page 41174]]

adopted by West Virginia into the State's regional haze SIP. WVDEP 
incorporated the BART emission limits into state operating permits, and 
submitted these permits as part of the State's regional haze SIP. The 
BART limits adopted in the SIP are as follows: For Dominion--Mt. Storm, 
an allowable PM10 emission rate of 0.03lb/mmBtu for Units 1, 
2, and 3; for PPG Industries, a limit of 1478.8 lbs/hr for Boiler 5; 
and for Capitol Cement, to shutdown Kiln 9 within 180 days of startup 
of the new preheater-precalciner kiln, or when full-production is 
achieved with the replacement kiln, or before BART Compliance deadline, 
whichever comes first. The BART compliance dates West Virginia has set 
in their June 18, 2008 Regional Haze Submittal comply with the BART 
Rule requiring controls be implemented no later than five years after 
publication in the Federal Register for the U.S. EPA Final Approval of 
the West Virginia Regional Haze SIP.
7. RPGs
    The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish RPGs 
for each Class I area within the state (expressed in deciviews) that 
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility. 
VISTAS modeled visibility improvements under existing Federal and State 
regulations for the period 2004-2018, and additional control measures 
which the VISTAS states planned to implement in the first 
implementation period. At the time of VISTAS modeling, some of the 
other states with sources potentially impacting visibility at the West 
Virginia Class I areas had not yet made final control determinations 
for BART and/or reasonable progress, and thus, these controls were not 
included in the modeling submitted by West Virginia. Any controls 
resulting from those determinations will provide additional emissions 
reductions and resulting visibility improvement, which give further 
assurances that West Virginia will achieve its RPGs. This modeling 
demonstrates that the 2018 base control scenario provides for an 
improvement in visibility better than the uniform rate of progress for 
both of the West Virginia's Class I areas for the most impaired days 
over the period of the implementation plan and ensures no degradation 
in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.
    As shown in Table 5 below, West Virginia's RPGs for the 20 percent 
worst days provide greater visibility improvement by 2018 than the 
uniform rate of progress for the State's Class I areas. Also, the RPGs 
for the 20 percent best days provide greater visibility improvement by 
2018 than current best day conditions. The modeling supporting the 
analysis of these RPGs is consistent with EPA guidance prior to the 
CAIR remand. The regional haze provisions specify that a state may not 
adopt a RPG that represents less visibility improvement than is 
expected to result from other CAA requirements during the 
implementation period. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the CAIR 
states with Class I areas, like West Virginia, took into account 
emission reductions anticipated from CAIR in determining their 2018 
RPGs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas similarly 
relied on CAIR emission reductions within the state to address some 
or all of their contribution to visibility impairment in other 
states' Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area state(s) used 
to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). Certain surrounding non-
CAIR states also relied on reductions due to CAIR in nearby states 
to develop their regional haze SIP submittals.

                                                               Table 5--West Virginia RPGs
                                                                     [In deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2018 Reasonable                                                   2018 Reasonable
                                                                   progress goal,  20%     Uniform rate of                           progress goal,  20%
               Class I area                 Baseline visibility,       worst days         progress at 2018,   Baseline visibility,        best days
                                               20% worst days       (improvement from      20% worst days         20% best days       (improvement from
                                                                        baseline)                                                         baseline)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area................                  29.0            21.7 (7.3)                  24.7                  12.3            11.1 (1.2)
Otter Creek Wilderness Area...............                  29.0            21.7 (7.3)                  24.7                  12.3            11.1 (1.2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPGs for the Class I areas in West Virginia are based on 
modeled projections of future conditions that were developed using the 
best available information at the time the analysis was done. These 
projections can be expected to change as additional information 
regarding future conditions becomes available. For example, new sources 
may be built, existing sources may shut down or modify production in 
response to changed economic circumstances, and facilities may change 
their emission characteristics as they install control equipment to 
comply with new rules. It would be both impractical and resource-
intensive to require a state to continually adjust the RPG every time 
an event affecting these future projections changed.
    EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement to meet a long-
term goal based on modeled projections of future visibility conditions, 
and addressed the uncertainties associated with RPGs in several ways. 
EPA made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory goal (64 FR 
35733). At the same time, EPA established a requirement for a midcourse 
review and, if necessary, correction of the states' regional haze 
plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls for a five-
year progress review after submittal of the initial regional haze plan. 
The purpose of this progress review is to assess the effectiveness of 
emission management strategies in meeting the RPG and to provide an 
assessment of whether current implementation strategies are sufficient 
for the state or affected states to meet their RPGs. If a state 
concludes, based on its assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I area 
will not be met, the RHR requires the state to take appropriate action. 
See 40 CFR 52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate action will depend 
on the basis for the state's conclusion that the current strategies are 
insufficient to meet the RPGs.
    EPA anticipates that the Transport Rule will result in similar or 
better improvements in visibility than predicted from CAIR. Because the 
Transport Rule is not final, however, we do not know at this time how 
it will affect any individual Class I area and cannot accurately model 
future conditions based on its implementation. By the time West 
Virginia is required to undertake its five year progress review,

[[Page 41175]]

however, it is likely that the impact of the Transport Rule and other 
measures can be meaningfully assessed. If, in particular Class I areas, 
the Transport Rule does not provide similar or greater benefits than 
CAIR and meeting the RPGs at one of its Federal Class I Areas is in 
jeopardy, the State will be required to address this circumstance in 
its five year review. Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve West 
Virginia's RPGs for the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area and the Otter Creek 
Wilderness Area.

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements

    EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI 
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for the RHR. Under EPA's RAVI 
regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral 
vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral 
vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the 
mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama 
located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.'' 
Visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area includes any integral 
vista associated with that area. The FLMs did not identify any integral 
vistas in West Virginia. In addition, neither Class I area in West 
Virginia is experiencing RAVI, nor are any of its sources affected by 
the RAVI provisions. Thus, the June 18, 2008, West Virginia regional 
haze SIP submittal does not explicitly address the two requirements 
regarding coordination of the regional haze with the RAVI LTS and 
monitoring provisions. However, West Virginia previously made a 
commitment to address RAVI should the FLM certify visibility impairment 
from an individual source.\15\ EPA finds that this regional haze 
submittal appropriately supplements and augments West Virginia's RAVI 
visibility provisions to address regional haze by updating the 
monitoring and LTS provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ West Virginia also submitted a SIP revision addressing PSD 
that EPA approved on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64470) and NSR that EPA 
approved on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64468).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 18, 2008 submittal, WVDEP updated its visibility 
monitoring program and developed a LTS to address regional haze. Also 
in this submittal, WVDEP affirmed its commitment to complete items 
required in the future under EPA's RHR. Specifically, WVDEP made a 
commitment to review and revise its regional haze implementation plan 
and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every 10 years 
thereafter. See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance with the requirements 
listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) of EPA's regional haze regulations and 40 
CFR 51.306(c) of the RAVI LTS regulations, WVDEP made a commitment to 
submit a report to EPA on progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory 
Class I area located within West Virginia, and in each mandatory Class 
I area located outside West Virginia which may be affected by emissions 
from within West Virginia. The progress report is required to be in the 
form of a SIP revision and is due every five years following the 
initial submittal of the regional haze SIP. Consistent with EPA's 
monitoring regulations for RAVI and regional haze, West Virginia will 
rely on the IMPROVE network for compliance purposes, in addition to any 
RAVI monitoring that may be needed in the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the West Virginia NSR rules, previously 
approved in the State's SIP, continue to provide a framework for review 
and coordination with the FLMs on new sources which may have an adverse 
impact on visibility in either form (i.e., RAVI and/or regional haze) 
in any Federal Class I Area.

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in West Virginia 
is the IMPROVE network. There is currently one IMPROVE site in West 
Virginia, which serves as the monitoring site for both the Dolly Sods 
Wilderness Area and Otter Creek Wilderness Area.
    IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for 
the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the June 18, 2008, 
regional haze submittal. In the submittal, West Virginia states its 
intention to rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the 
regional haze monitoring requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and 
future regional haze implementation periods.
    Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly 
continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-
year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding 
five years of data. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System 
(VIEWS) Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other RPOs to 
provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. West 
Virginia is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain the VIEWS 
or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the 
IMPROVE data.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, there is long-term limited 
monitoring by the FLMs, which provides additional insight into the 
progress toward the regional haze goals. Such measurements include web 
cameras operated by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest 
Service at Dolly Sods. West Virginia and the local air agencies in the 
State operate a comprehensive PM2.5 network of filter-based 
Federal reference method monitors and filter based speciated monitors.

F. Consultation With States and FLMs

1. Consultation With Other States
    In December 2006 and in May 2007, the State Air Directors from the 
VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose 
of the meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for 
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states 
invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide 
additional feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses 
showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of 
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.
    WVDEP has evaluated the impact of West Virginia sources on Class I 
areas in neighboring states. The state in which a Class I area is 
located is responsible for determining which sources, both inside and 
outside of that state, to evaluate for reasonable progress controls. 
Because many of these states had not yet defined their criteria for 
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress, West Virginia 
applied its AOI methodology to identify sources in the State that have 
emission units with impacts large enough to potentially warrant further 
evaluation and analysis. Based on an evaluation of the four reasonable 
progress statutory factors, West Virginia determined that there are no 
additional control measures for these West Virginia emission units that 
would be reasonable to implement to mitigate visibility impacts in 
Class I areas in these neighboring states. WVDEP has consulted with 
these states regarding its reasonable progress control evaluations 
showing no cost-effective controls available for those emission units 
in West Virginia contributing at least one percent to visibility 
impairment at Class I areas in the states. Additionally, WVDEP sent 
letters to the other states in the VISTAS region documenting its 
analysis that there are no cost-effective controls available for those 
units whose SO2 emission contribute at least one

[[Page 41176]]

percent to visibility impairment at Class I areas.
    Regarding the impact of sources outside of the State on Class I 
areas in West Virginia, WVDEP sent letters to Maryland pertaining to 
the New Page facility located in Luke, Maryland because it contributes 
11.81 percent of sulfate at Dolly Sods Wilderness Area with 9.86 
percent attributable to two units, one of which is subject to BART. The 
Maryland Department of the Environment is still in the process of 
evaluating BART and reasonable progress for the New Page facility. Any 
controls resulting from these determinations will provide additional 
emissions reductions and result in visibility improvement, which gives 
further assurances that West Virginia will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, 
to be conservative, West Virginia opted not to rely on any additional 
emission reductions from sources located outside the State's boundaries 
beyond those already identified in the State's regional haze SIP 
submittal.
    West Virginia received letters from the MANE-VU RPO States of 
Maine, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Vermont in the spring of 2007, 
stating that based on MANE-VU's analysis of 2002 emissions data, West 
Virginia contributed to visibility impairment to Class I areas in those 
states. The MANE-VU states identified thirteen EGU stacks in West 
Virginia that they would like to see controlled to 90 percent 
efficiency. They also requested a control strategy to provide a 28 
percent reduction in SO2 emissions from sources other than 
EGUs that would be equivalent to MANE-VU's proposed low sulfur fuel oil 
strategy. All thirteen of the EGU stacks identified by MANE-VU will be 
controlled by 2018, and thirteen of the units will be controlled with a 
95 percent efficiency, resulting in an additional 73,015 tons of 
SO2 reductions beyond those requested by MANE-VU. West 
Virginia's non-EGUs are predicted to emit 61,704 tons of SO2 
in 2018. MANE-VU's request of 28 percent reduction would be 17,277 tons 
of SO2. The additional 91,864 tons of SO2 
reductions achieved by the installation and operation of more efficient 
controls on EGUs and the shutdown of additional EGUs, will achieve 
greater reductions than the 28 percent reduction requested by MANE-VU. 
These reductions satisfy MANE-VU's request. EPA finds that West 
Virginia has adequately addressed the consultation requirements in the 
RHR and appropriately documented its consultation with other states in 
its SIP submittal.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
    Through the VISTAS RPO, West Virginia and the nine other member 
states worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of 
the Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support 
the regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. The proposed regional 
haze plan for West Virginia was submitted to the FLMs for review on 
September 21, 2007. West Virginia received comments from the FLMs on 
October 22, 2007. Since the comments were received prior to the start 
of the public hearing, the WVDEP was able to incorporate some of the 
suggested changes in the public review document. The public comment 
period was from October 26, 2007 to November 27, 2007. However, due to 
the short time frame not all comments could be addressed prior to the 
start of the public comment period, but were addressed in a separate 
document titled ``Federal Land Manager Consultation.'' WVDEP reopened 
the public comment period for two specific portions of the proposed 
SIP. The two specific parts of the Regional Haze SIP were a revised 
BART determination and the FLM conclusions/recommendations and DEP 
responses. To address the requirement for continuing consultation 
procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), WVDEP made a 
commitment in the SIP to ongoing consultation with the FLMs on regional 
haze issues throughout implementation of its plan, including annual 
discussions. WVDEP also affirms in the SIP that FLM consultation is 
required for those sources subject to the State's NSR regulations.

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    Consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(g), WVDEP affirmed its commitment to 
submitting a progress report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every 
five years following this initial submittal of the West Virginia 
regional haze SIP. The report will evaluate the progress made towards 
the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area located within West Virginia 
and in each mandatory Class I area located outside West Virginia which 
may be affected by emissions from within West Virginia. West Virginia 
also offered recommendations for several technical improvements that, 
as funding allows, can support the State's next LTS.
    If another state's regional haze SIP identifies that West 
Virginia's SIP needs to be supplemented or modified, and if, after 
appropriate consultation West Virginia agrees, today's action may be 
revisited, or additional information and/or changes will be addressed 
in the five-year progress report SIP revision.

VI. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of a 
revision to the West Virginia SIP submitted by the State of West 
Virginia on June 18, 2008, as meeting some of the applicable regional 
haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and 
in 40 CFR 51.300-308, as described previously in this action. EPA is 
also proposing to find that this revision meets the applicable 
visibility related requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2) including, but 
not limited to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), relating to 
visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has determined that once the Regional 
Haze Plan submitted by the State of West Virginia is fully approved it 
will satisfy the requirements of the CAA. EPA is taking this action 
pursuant to those provisions of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public 
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will 
be considered before taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines 
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * * 
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or 
more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act 
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

[[Page 41177]]

    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new 
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 
Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to 
approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes 
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
limited approval and limited disapproval of the West Virginia Regional 
Haze SIP does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 6, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-17664 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


