
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10451-10458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04087]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0006; FRL-9907-10-Region-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Virginia; 
Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
approval of a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Virginia 
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Virginia's SIP revision 
addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that 
require states to submit periodic reports describing progress towards 
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a 
determination of the adequacy of the Commonwealth's existing SIP 
addressing regional haze (regional haze SIP). EPA is proposing approval 
of Virginia's SIP revision on the basis that it addresses the progress 
report and adequacy determination requirements for the first 
implementation period for regional haze.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0006, by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0006, Cristina Fernandez, Associate 
Director,

[[Page 10452]]

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-
2014-0006. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online 
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of Virginia's 
submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental 
Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by 
email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs and 
Adequacy Determinations
III. EPA's Analysis of Virginia's Regional Haze Progress Report SIP 
and Adequacy Determination
IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the 
Commonwealth of Virginia
V. EPA's Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a 
SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs 
for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each 
mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected 
by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are 
also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a 
determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze 
SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report SIP is due five 
years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. On October 4, 
2010, Virginia DEQ submitted the Commonwealth's first regional haze SIP 
in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 13, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of 
Virginia's October 4, 2010 regional haze SIP to address the first 
implementation period for regional haze (77 FR 35287). In a separate 
action, published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a 
limited disapproval of the Virginia regional haze SIP because of the 
Commonwealth's reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to 
meet certain regional haze requirements, which EPA replaced in 
August 2011 with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 
48208, August 8, 2011). In the aforementioned June 7, 2012 action, 
EPA finalized a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Virginia to 
replace the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. 
Following these EPA actions, the DC Circuit issued a decision in EME 
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 
cert. granted 133 U.S. 2857 (2013) vacating CSAPR and keeping CAIR 
in place pending the promulgation of a valid replacement rule. EPA 
believes that the EME Homer City decision impacts the reasoning that 
formed the basis for EPA's limited disapproval of Virginia's 
regional haze SIP based on Virginia's reliance upon CAIR and expects 
to propose an appropriate action regarding the limited approval and 
limited disapproval of the regional haze SIP upon final resolution 
of EME Homer City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 8, 2013, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted, as a 
SIP revision (progress report SIP), a report on progress made in the 
first implementation period towards RPGs for Class I areas in the 
Commonwealth and Class I areas outside the Commonwealth that are 
affected by emissions from Virginia's sources. This progress report SIP 
and accompanying cover letter also included a determination that the 
Commonwealth's existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive 
revision to achieve the established regional haze visibility 
improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. EPA is proposing to 
approve Virginia's progress report SIP on the basis that it satisfies 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs and 
Adequacy Determinations

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress 
report as a SIP revision every five years and must address, at a 
minimum, the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in 
further detail in section III of this rulemaking action, 40 CFR 
51.308(g) requires: (1) A description of the status of measures in the 
approved regional haze SIP; (2) a summary of emissions reductions 
achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility conditions for each Class I 
area in the state; (4) an analysis of changes in emissions from sources 
and activities within the state; (5) an assessment of any significant 
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that 
have limited or impeded progress in Class I areas impacted by the 
state's sources; (6) an assessment of the sufficiency of the approved 
regional haze SIP; and (7) a review of the state's visibility 
monitoring strategy.
    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same 
time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of 
their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible 
actions based on information in the progress report. As described in 
further detail in section III of this rulemaking action, 40 CFR 
51.308(h) requires states to either: (1) Submit a negative declaration 
to EPA that no further substantive revision to the state's existing 
regional haze SIP is needed; (2) provide notification to EPA (and other 
state(s) that participated in the regional planning process) if the 
state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be 
inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas 
due to emissions from sources in other state(s) that participated in 
the regional planning process, and collaborate with

[[Page 10453]]

these other state(s) to develop additional strategies to address 
deficiencies; (3) provide notification with supporting information to 
EPA if the state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or 
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I 
areas due to emissions from sources in another country; or (4) revise 
its regional haze SIP to address deficiencies within one year if the 
state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be 
inadequate to ensure reasonable progress in one or more Class I areas 
due to emissions from sources within the state.

III. EPA's Analysis of Virginia's Regional Haze Progress Report and 
Adequacy Determination

    On November 8, 2013, Virginia submitted a SIP revision to address 
progress made towards RPGs of Class I areas in the Commonwealth and 
Class I areas outside the Commonwealth that are affected by emissions 
from Virginia's sources. This progress report SIP also includes a 
determination of the adequacy of the Commonwealth's existing regional 
haze SIP.
    Virginia has two Class I areas within its borders: James River Face 
Wilderness Area (James River) and Shenandoah National Park 
(Shenandoah). Virginia mentions in the progress report SIP that 
Virginia sources were also identified, through an area of influence 
modeling analysis based on back trajectories, as potentially impacting 
nine Class I areas in five neighboring states: Dolly Sods Wilderness 
Area in West Virginia; Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Joyce 
Kilmer--Slickrock Wilderness Area in North Carolina and Tennessee; 
Linville Gorge, Shining Rock and Swanquarter Wilderness Areas in North 
Carolina; Cohutta and Wolf Island Wilderness Areas in Georgia; and Cape 
Romaine Wilderness Area in South Carolina.

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs

    This section summarizes each of the seven elements that must be 
addressed by the progress report under the provisions of 40 CFR 
51.308(g); how Virginia's progress report SIP addressed each element; 
and EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to whether the 
Commonwealth satisfied each element.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) require a description of 
the status of implementation of all measures included in the regional 
haze SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside 
the state. The Commonwealth of Virginia evaluated the status of all 
measures included in its 2010 regional haze SIP in accordance with the 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). Specifically, in its progress 
report SIP, Virginia summarizes the status of the emissions reduction 
measures that were included in the final iteration of the Visibility 
Improvement--State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 
regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling. The Commonwealth 
also discusses the status of those measures that were not included in 
the final VISTAS emissions inventory and were not relied upon in the 
initial regional haze SIP to meet RPGs. The Commonwealth notes that the 
emissions reductions from these measures, which are relied upon by 
Virginia for reasonable progress, will help ensure Class I areas 
impacted by Virginia sources achieve their RPGs. The measures include 
applicable Federal programs (e.g., mobile source rules, Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, Federal and state 
consent agreements, and Federal and state control strategies for 
electric generating units (EGUs) such as CAIR, CSAPR, and state multi-
pollutant regulations for EGUs). Virginia's summary includes a 
discussion of the benefits associated with each measure and quantifies 
those benefits wherever possible. In instances where implementation of 
a measure did not occur on schedule, information is provided on the 
source category and the measure's relative impact on the overall future 
year emissions inventories. The progress report SIP also discusses the 
status and implementation of the best available retrofit technology 
(BART) determinations for BART sources in Virginia, the implementation 
status of BART for sources in neighboring states, and the 
implementation of a reasonable progress determination for one Virginia 
source. Finally, Virginia's progress report SIP discusses 
implementation of regulations and requirements developed after 
Virginia's regional haze SIP was prepared which Virginia asserts will 
provide extra assurance that Virginia's Class I areas will meet their 
RPGs including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) for EGUs, the 
2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS), several control measures for volatile organic 
compound (VOC) reductions, Federal consent decrees which include 
SO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOX) reductions at 
sources, and plant shutdowns.
    In aggregate, as noted later in section III.A of this rulemaking 
action, the emissions reductions from the identified measures are 
expected to exceed significantly the original projections in Virginia's 
regional haze SIP and result in lower emissions by 2018 than originally 
projected. Virginia states that it did not expect reasonable progress 
to be adversely impacted in any of the Class I areas in Virginia or 
neighboring states by any of the changes to the emissions reductions 
projected.
    EPA proposes to find that Virginia's analysis adequately addresses 
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The Commonwealth documents 
the implementation status of measures from its regional haze SIP such 
as regulations, Federal and state consent decrees, and BART 
determinations in addition to describing additional measures that came 
into effect since the VISTAS analysis for the Virginia regional haze 
SIP was completed, including new regulations for EGUs, Federal consent 
decrees, and unanticipated plant shutdowns. Virginia's progress report 
also describes significant measures resulting from EPA regulations 
other than the regional haze program as they pertain to Virginia 
sources. The progress report SIP highlights the effect of several 
Federal control measures both nationally and in the VISTAS region, and 
when possible, in Virginia.
    The Commonwealth's progress report discusses the status of key 
control measures that the Commonwealth relied upon in the first 
implementation period to make reasonable progress. In its regional haze 
SIP, Virginia identified SO2 emissions from coal-fired EGUs 
as a key contributor to regional haze in the VISTAS region and 
identified the EGU sector as a major contributor to visibility 
impairment at all Class I areas in the VISTAS region. The 
Commonwealth's progress report SIP provides additional information on 
EGU control strategies and the status of existing and future expected 
controls for Virginia's EGUs, with updated actual SO2 
emissions data for the years 2002-2012 reflecting large reductions of 
SO2 through 2012. In its regional haze SIP, Virginia had 
determined that no additional controls of non-EGU sources were 
reasonable for the first implementation period.
    Regarding the status of BART and reasonable progress control 
requirements for sources in the Commonwealth, EPA finds Virginia's 
progress report SIP adequately reviews the status of the Commonwealth's 
four BART sources and its reasonable progress determination source by 
mentioning that controls are currently operational at these sources or 
that units

[[Page 10454]]

have been shutdown.\2\ Because the Commonwealth found no additional 
controls to be reasonable for the first implementation period for 
sources evaluated for reasonable progress in Virginia, no further 
discussion of the status of controls was necessary in the progress 
report SIP. EPA proposes to conclude that Virginia has adequately 
addressed the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP as 
required by the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) by discussing the 
status of key measures that the Commonwealth relied upon in the first 
implementation period to make reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Virginia also identified 66 BART-subject sources in other 
states determined to be in the area of influence of either James 
River or Shenandoah using the Commonwealth's methodology for 
determining sources eligible for a reasonable progress control 
determination. EPA finds the progress report SIP adequately 
summarizes the BART control determinations and their implementation 
for these facilities in the surrounding States of Maryland, 
Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Delaware, West Virginia, Tennessee, and 
North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) require a summary of the 
emissions reductions achieved in the state through the measures subject 
to the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). In its regional haze SIP 
and progress report SIP, Virginia focused its assessment on the largest 
contributor to visibility impairment, SO2 emissions from 
EGUs. Virginia made this decision for the first implementation period 
due to VISTAS' findings that sulfate accounted for more than 70 percent 
of visibility-impairing pollution in the Southeast and that 
SO2 point source emissions in 2018 represent more than 95 
percent of the total projected SO2 emissions inventory.
    Overall, Virginia states SO2 emissions have decreased 
significantly in the Commonwealth. Virginia states there has been a 
large reduction in SO2 emissions from EGUs, an 87 percent 
decrease from 2002 to 2012, which resulted from many process and 
operational changes, including SO2 control installations, 
switches to cleaner fuels by emission units, retirements of units, and 
curtailments of certain coal-fired operations. Based on utility 
emissions data from 2002 through 2012 as reported in EPA's Clean Air 
Markets Division (CAMD) database, Virginia indicates that actual 
emissions of SO2 from the coal-fired EGU sector have dropped 
from 216,341 tons per year (tpy) in 2002 to 28,345 tpy in 2012, 
reflecting the 87 percent decrease.\3\ Additionally, the 2012 actual 
emissions of SO2 (30,732 tpy) are substantially less than 
originally projected in the 2018 modeling inventory (82,121 tpy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In comparing 2002 and 2012 emissions to report the 87 
percent decrease in SO2 emissions from the EGU sector, 
Virginia excluded SO2 emissions from EGU sources which 
did not report to CAMD in 2002 from the 2012 SO2 
emissions of 28,345 tpy. The complete SO2 emissions from 
all Virginia EGUs reporting to CAMD in 2012 is 30,732 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While heat input to Virginia's EGUs has decreased approximately 27 
percent from 2002 values, Virginia states in its progress report SIP 
that SO2 and NOX emission rates for the coal-
fired EGUs have decreased by 82 percent for SO2 and 67 
percent for NOX due to installation of controls and fuel 
switches. Given these substantial reductions in emission rates, 
Virginia states it expects the significant reductions of SO2 
should be maintained even if heat inputs increase in the future. 
Virginia states that similar progress in emissions reductions across 
all VISTAS states have been observed between 2002 and 2012 as well. 
Based on EPA's CAMD data, 2012 heat input data decreased only 8 percent 
from 2002 values, while SO2 and NOX emission 
rates declined 76 percent and 73 percent respectively. Virginia also 
states in its progress report SIP that it expects additional 
retirements of EGU sources through 2018 and asserts the remaining coal-
fired EGUs in Virginia have operational SO2 controls which 
should greatly reduce the visibility impact of such sources on Class I 
areas.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Virginia has adequately addressed the 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) with its summary of the large 
emissions reductions, particularly in SO2 and NOX 
from EGUs, achieved in the Commonwealth through the measures in 
Virginia's regional haze SIP. The Commonwealth provides estimates, and 
where available, actual emissions reductions of SO2 (and 
NOX) from EGUs in Virginia that have occurred since the 
Commonwealth submitted its regional haze SIP. The Commonwealth 
appropriately focused on SO2 emissions from its EGUs in its 
progress report SIP because Virginia had previously identified these 
emissions as the most significant contributors to visibility impairment 
at James River and Shenandoah and at additional Class I areas that 
Virginia sources impact. In addition, Virginia provides estimates, and 
where available, actual emissions reductions for certain non-EGU 
control measures that were in its regional haze SIP when addressing the 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) for implementation status. 
Because no additional controls were found to be reasonable for the 
first implementation period for evaluated sources in Virginia for 
reasonable progress, EPA proposes to find that no further discussion of 
emissions reductions from controls was necessary in the progress report 
SIP.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) require that states with 
Class I areas provide the following information for the most impaired 
and least impaired days for each area, with values expressed in terms 
of five-year averages of these annual values: \4\ (1) Current 
visibility conditions; (2) the difference between current visibility 
conditions and baseline visibility conditions; and (3) the change in 
visibility impairment over the past five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in 
the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment 
(measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in 
a calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility 
impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year period. See 40 
CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commonwealth provides visibility data for 2001 through 2011 
that addresses the three requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) for James 
River and Shenandoah. In the Virginia regional haze SIP, for the 20% 
worst days, Virginia established a RPG for James River of 6.7 deciview 
(dv) reduction in visibility impairment by 2018, which is significantly 
greater than the 4.2 dv reduction required to meet the uniform rate of 
progress necessary to achieve a natural background condition of 11.1 dv 
by 2064. For Shenandoah, Virginia established a RPG for the 20% worst 
days of 7.4 dv reduction in visibility impairment by 2018, which is 
significantly greater than the 4.2 dv reduction required to meet the 
uniform rate of progress necessary to achieve the natural background 
condition of 11.4 dv by 2064. Likewise, Virginia also adopted a RPG for 
the 20% best days that would result in a 2.2 dv reduction in visibility 
impairment for James River and 1.8 dv reduction in visibility 
impairment for Shenandoah. Based on Virginia's analysis of emissions 
reductions and visibility data for 2001-2011, Virginia states it is on 
track to achieve its RPGs by 2018, visibility is improving at James 
River and Shenandoah, and no additional controls on non-EGUs are needed 
as SO2 emission reductions from EGUs are expected to 
continue over the next five years.
    EPA finds the difference between current and baseline visibility 
and the five-year rolling averages for the most impaired (20% worst) 
and least impaired (20% best) days at both Virginia Class I areas 
indicates that visibility has significantly improved since 2001 (as 
illustrated in Table 1 of this rulemaking action) and finds Virginia's 
assessment that it is on track

[[Page 10455]]

to meet its RPGs at James River and Shenandoah reasonable given the 
downward trend in visibility impairment and in SO2 emissions 
from EGUs.

                                                   Table 1--Visibility Data for Virginia Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       James River Face Wilderness Area                Shenandoah National Park
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     20% Worst days         20% Best days        20% Worst days         20% Best days
                              Year                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               5-Year                5-Year                5-Year                5-Year
                                                                    Annual    average     Annual    average     Annual    average     Annual    average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001............................................................       29.5  .........       14.5  .........       29.2  .........       13.2  .........
2002............................................................       30.4  .........       15.7  .........       30.5  .........       11.5  .........
2003............................................................       28.4  .........       12.9  .........       28.9  .........        9.5  .........
2004............................................................       28.2  .........       13.8  .........       29.3  .........        9.4  .........
2005............................................................       30.5       29.4       14.9       14.4       30.8       29.8       10.2       10.8
2006............................................................       29.0       29.3       14.8       14.4       29.3       29.8       10.6       10.3
2007............................................................       28.5       28.9       13.8       14.0       28.8       29.4       11.1       10.2
2008............................................................       25.5       28.4       13.0       14.1       25.7       28.8        8.2       10.0
2009............................................................       22.9       27.3       11.6       13.6       21.8       27.3        8.2        9.7
2010............................................................       23.9       26.0       13.4       13.3       23.4       25.8        9.7        9.6
2011............................................................       24.3       24.4       11.5       12.7       23.4       24.6        7.8        9.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finds Virginia provided the required information regarding 
visibility conditions and changes to meet the requirements under 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(3), specifically providing current conditions based on the 
latest available Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data, the difference between current 
visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions (2001-2004), 
and the change in visibility impairment over the most recent five-year 
period (2007-2011) for which data were available at the time of the 
progress report SIP development. For the 2007-2011 time period for 
James River, visibility impairment for the 20-percent worst days 
improved by 4.5 dv (comparing 5 year averages) and for the 20-percent 
best days improved by 1.3 dv (comparing 5 year averages). For the 2007-
2011 time period for Shenandoah, visibility impairment for the 20-
percent worst days improved by 4.8 dv (comparing 5 year averages) and 
for the 20-percent best days improved by 1.2 dv (comparing 5 year 
averages). Given the visibility improvement in Virginia's Class I 
areas, EPA finds that the Commonwealth's assessment that it is on track 
to meet RPGs by 2018 is reasonable. EPA proposes to conclude that 
Virginia has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) require an analysis 
tracking emissions changes of visibility-impairing pollutants from the 
state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on 
the most recent updated emissions inventory. In its progress report 
SIP, Virginia presents emissions inventories for 2002, 2007, 2009, 
2011, and 2018 in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(4). The progress report SIP includes Virginia's baseline 
emissions inventory from 2002 and estimated emissions inventories for 
2009 and 2018 (as updated by VISTAS in 2008).\5\ Virginia's progress 
report SIP includes the 2007 emissions inventory prepared by the 
Southeastern Modeling, Analysis, and Planning (SEMAP) project, which 
was funded by EPA and the ten states in VISTAS and which is the most 
recent historical inventory that has been fully quality-assured 
according to Virginia.\6\ Virginia then compares emissions from 2002 
and 2007 to its 2011 emissions inventory which was prepared from 2011 
National Emissions Inventory, version 1 (NEIv1) data and available 
state-level information.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ VISTAS improved model performance for the 2002 base year 
emissions inventory used by Virginia in its original regional haze 
SIP, resulting in updates to the 2002 inventory and the 2009 and 
2018 projection inventories. VISTAS provided the final iteration of 
these inventories to the states in 2008.
    \6\ Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(b), regional haze SIPs for the 
first implementation period were due on December 17, 2007. 
Therefore, EPA finds that the 2007 emissions inventory used by 
Virginia in this progress report SIP reflects an appropriate 
emissions inventory for Virginia to use for 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) to 
track emissions changes of visibility-impairing pollutants from the 
state's sources.
    \7\ The 2011 NEI inventory uses state-supplied data or model 
inputs for area and non-road estimates. The 2011 on-road estimates 
are based on Virginia's application of EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission 
Simulator (MOVES) model using both county-specific inputs for all 
Virginia jurisdictions and the model's inventory mode. The 2011 
point source data is based on 2011 CAMD data for those sources 
reporting to CAMD or on data from Virginia's Comprehensive 
Environmental Data System (CEDS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pollutants inventoried include carbon monoxide (CO), VOCs, 
NOX, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), coarse 
particulate matter (PM10), ammonia (NH3), and 
SO2. The emissions inventories include the following source 
classifications: Stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-
road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. The comparison of emissions 
inventory data shows that emissions of the key visibility-impairing 
pollutant for the southeast, SO2, continued to drop from 
428,070 tpy in 2002 to 268,877 tpy in 2007 to 115,436 tpy in 2011. The 
emissions inventories also show similar substantial declines in other 
pollutants, including CO, NOX, PM10, and VOCs 
between 2007 and 2011.\8\ Finally, the 2011 emissions inventory shows 
emissions levels of SO2, CO, NH3, 
PM10, PM2.5, and VOCs well below levels projected 
for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA notes that emissions of PM2.5 remained 
relatively stable in Virginia between 2007 and 2011; however, 
significant reductions in emissions of PM2.5 occurred 
from 2002 (85,762 tpy) to 2011 (72,441 tpy), and the 2011 emissions 
of PM2.5 are still well below the 2018 projections of 
93,895 tpy of PM2.5 demonstrating Virginia's progress in 
reductions of PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For meeting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2), Virginia 
documented substantial emissions reductions in SO2 and 
NOX from EGUs that already have occurred and discussed 
further emissions expected by 2018 for this sector. As noted in section 
III.A of this rulemaking action, Virginia expects overall EGU 
SO2 emissions to continue to decline beyond the reductions 
projected in the Commonwealth's regional haze SIP due the retirement of 
many coal-fired power plants and additional fuel switches not 
previously projected which should result in further visibility 
improvement

[[Page 10456]]

at Class I areas affected by Virginia sources.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Virginia has adequately addressed the 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). While ideally the five-year 
period to be analyzed for emissions inventory changes is the time 
period since the current regional haze SIP was submitted, availability 
of quality-assured data may not always correspond with this period. 
Therefore, EPA believes that there is some flexibility in the five-year 
time period states can select for tracking emissions changes to meet 
this requirement. EPA proposes to find Virginia appropriately compared 
its 2011 emissions inventory with the 2007 emissions inventory.\9\ 
Virginia also included more recent SO2 and NOX 
emissions data from 2012 for the EGU sector which shows continuing 
declining trends in emissions of these pollutants. EPA also reviewed 
preliminary SO2 and NOX emissions data from CAMD 
for Virginia's EGUs for 2013 and notes similar significantly reduced 
emissions from these EGU sources in 2013. EPA believes that Virginia 
presented an adequate analysis tracking emissions trends for visibility 
impairing pollutants such as SO2, NOX, 
PM10 and PM2.5 since 2007 using the emissions 
data available to Virginia. Virginia's 2011 emissions inventory shows 
significant reductions of 153,441 tpy of SO2, 92,081 tpy of 
NOX, and 16,373 tpy of PM10 from 2007 with even 
larger reductions when compared to 2002 and well beyond what was 
projected for 2018, demonstrating greater progress than Virginia had 
projected in 2010. EPA believes this provides sufficient information to 
support the representativeness of the period evaluated by Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As stated above, Virginia's 2007 emissions inventory 
reflects emissions in the year the first regional haze SIP was due 
per 40 CFR 51.308(b), and EPA finds the 2007 inventory to be an 
appropriate emissions inventory for Virginia to use for 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(4) to track emissions changes of visibility-impairing 
pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of 
any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside 
the state that have occurred over the past five years that have limited 
or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving 
visibility in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources. In its 
progress report SIP, Virginia states that sulfates continue to be the 
biggest single contributor to regional haze at James River and 
Shenandoah. Accordingly, Virginia focused its analysis on addressing 
large SO2 emissions from point sources but has also 
addressed in its analysis NOX and PM2.5. In its 
progress report SIP, Virginia demonstrates that the Commonwealth's 
reduced emissions in 2012 have already exceeded Virginia's 2018 
emissions inventory projections for SO2, NOX, and 
PM2.5 particularly for the EGU sector and discusses further 
emissions reductions expected from additional state and Federal 
measures not included in the regional haze SIP such as MATS, the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS, Federal consent decrees with SO2 and 
NOX reductions at sources, and plant shutdowns.
    EPA proposes to find that Virginia has adequately addressed the 
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5). The Commonwealth adequately 
demonstrated that there are no significant changes in emissions of 
SO2, PM2.5, or NOX that have impeded 
progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in the Class I 
areas within Virginia or impacted by Virginia sources. The Commonwealth 
provided data demonstrating present emission reductions of 
SO2 from EGUs were greater than originally projected for 
2018 in the State's regional haze SIP and showing an overall 
significant downward trend in emissions over the period 2002 to 2011. 
Furthermore, the progress report SIP shows that the Commonwealth is on 
track to meeting its 2018 RPGs for James River and Shenandoah.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) require an assessment of 
whether the current regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable the 
state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by 
emissions from the state. In its progress report SIP, Virginia states 
that it believes that the elements and strategies outlined in its 
original regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable Virginia and other 
neighboring states to meet all the established RPGs. To support this 
conclusion, the Commonwealth of Virginia notes that Virginia's actual 
2012 EGU emissions of SO2 are already below the 2018 
projected emissions of SO2, with further decreases expected. 
Virginia expects that the reduction of SO2 emissions will in 
fact be even greater than originally anticipated, particularly for the 
EGU sector as previously discussed in this rulemaking notice. In 
particular, the Commonwealth notes the emissions reductions already 
achieved between 2007 and 2012 and the additional reductions projected 
for 2018 which were not included in the original regional haze SIP (as 
discussed previously for purposes of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)) further 
support the Commonwealth's conclusion that the regional haze SIP's 
elements and strategies are sufficient to meet the established RPGs. 
Virginia also provides information on all the Class I areas where any 
Virginia point source was found to have contributed to the calculated 
sulfate visibility impairment in 2018 and shows each Class I area has 
made significant progress toward improving visibility. Virginia's 
progress report SIP contains visibility data supporting the conclusion 
that each Class I area impacted by sources in Virginia is meeting or 
below its ``glidepath,'' making reasonable progress towards achieving 
natural visibility conditions.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Virginia has adequately addressed 
under the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this 
requirement as a qualitative assessment that should evaluate emissions 
and visibility trends and other readily available information, 
including expected emissions reductions associated with measures with 
compliance dates that have not yet become effective. The Commonwealth 
referenced the improving visibility trends with appropriately supported 
data and referenced the downward emissions trends in the Commonwealth, 
with a focus on SO2 emissions from Virginia EGUs, that 
support the Commonwealth's determination that the Commonwealth's 
regional haze SIP is sufficient to meet RPGs for Class I areas within 
and outside the Commonwealth impacted by Virginia sources.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) require a review of a 
state's visibility monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any 
modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary. In its progress 
report SIP, Virginia summarizes the existing monitoring network at 
James River and Shenandoah and discusses its intended continued 
reliance on the IMPROVE monitoring network for its visibility planning. 
Virginia also expresses its continued commitment to operate monitors 
supporting regional haze investigations where appropriate and when 
support is available. Virginia also encourages VISTAS and other 
regional planning organizations to maintain support of the existing 
data management system or an equivalent to facilitate availability 
analysis of IMPROVE and visibility-related data. Virginia concludes 
that the existing network is adequate and that no modifications to the 
Commonwealth's visibility monitoring strategy are necessary at this 
time.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Virginia has adequately addressed the

[[Page 10457]]

sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by the provisions 
under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7). The Commonwealth reaffirmed its continued 
reliance upon the IMPROVE monitoring network and discussed its 
additional PM2.5 monitoring network used to further 
understand visibility trends in the Commonwealth. Virginia also 
explained the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network for tracking 
visibility trends at James River and Shenandoah and identified no 
expected changes in this network.

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four 
possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made 
in the progress report SIP. The following section summarizes: the 
action taken by Virginia under 40 CFR 51.308(h); Virginia's rationale 
for the selected action; and EPA's analysis and proposed determination 
regarding the Commonwealth's action.
    In its progress report SIP, Virginia submitted a negative 
declaration that it had determined that the existing regional haze SIP 
requires no further substantive revision to achieve the RPGs for Class 
I areas affected by Virginia's sources. The basis for the 
Commonwealth's negative declaration is the findings from the progress 
report (as discussed in section III of this rulemaking action), 
including the findings that: Visibility data has improved at James 
River and Shenandoah; SO2 emissions from the Commonwealth's 
sources have decreased beyond original projections; additional EGU 
control measures not relied upon in the Commonwealth's regional haze 
SIP have been implemented or will occur in the implementation period; 
and the EGU SO2 emissions in Virginia are already below the 
levels projected for 2018 in the regional haze SIP and are expected to 
continue to trend downward for the next five years, as will the 
SO2 emissions from EGUs in the other VISTAS states. EPA 
proposes to conclude Virginia has adequately addressed under the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility data trends at 
the Class I areas impacted by the Commonwealth's sources and the 
emissions trends of the Commonwealth's largest emitters of visibility-
impairing pollutants both indicate that the Commonwealth's RPGs for 
2018 will be met or exceeded.

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the 
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to 
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) 
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a 
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden 
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking 
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's 
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty 
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity 
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation 
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes 
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's 
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and 
information about the content of those documents that are the product 
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not 
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed 
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or 
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the 
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege 
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents 
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program 
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce 
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less 
stringent than their Federal counterparts . . . .'' The opinion 
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or 
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of 
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and 
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required 
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or 
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that 
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal 
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a 
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, 
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from 
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute 
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since 
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal 
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with 
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and 
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its 
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because 
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law 
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal 
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under 
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to 
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, 
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by 
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Virginia's regional haze five-year 
progress report SIP revision, submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia 
on November 8, 2013, as meeting the applicable regional haze 
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

[[Page 10458]]

     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule to approve Virginia's regional haze 
progress report SIP revision does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 11, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III
[FR Doc. 2014-04087 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


