Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 41158-41177 [2011-17664]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
41158
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Bufano, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS–316), Food
and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,
240–402–1493.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
In the Federal Register of July 9, 2009
(74 FR 33030), FDA issued a final rule
requiring shell egg producers to
implement measures to prevent
Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) from
contaminating eggs on the farm and
from further growth during storage and
transportation, and requiring these
producers to maintain records
concerning their compliance with the
final rule and to register with FDA. This
final rule became effective September 8,
2009, with a compliance date of July 9,
2010, for producers with 50,000 or more
laying hens. For producers with fewer
than 50,000, but at least 3,000 laying
hens, the compliance date is July 9,
2012. The compliance date for persons
who must comply with only the
refrigeration requirements was July 9,
2010.
This level 1 draft guidance is being
issued consistent with FDA’s good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR
10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency’s
current thinking on how to interpret the
requirements in the final rule, including
questions and answers on compliance
dates; coverage; definitions; SE
prevention measures; sampling and
testing for SE; registration; and
compliance and enforcement. It does
not create or confer any rights for or on
any person and does not operate to bind
FDA or the public. An alternate
approach may be used if such approach
satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.
II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This draft guidance refers to
previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations.
These collections of information are
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections
of information in 21 CFR 118.5, 118.6,
118.10, and 118.11 have been approved
under OMB control number 0910–0660.
III. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the
Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written
comments regarding this document. It is
only necessary to send one set of
comments. It is no longer necessary to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
send two copies of mailed comments.
Identify comments with the docket
number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
IV. Electronic Access
Persons with access to the Internet
may obtain the draft guidance at
https://www.fda.gov/
RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/
default.htm or https://
www.regulations.gov.
Dated: July 7, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011–17457 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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. https://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 previouslylisted 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 https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
https://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 https://
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.
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
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Table of Contents
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
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
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41159
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 https://
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
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
41160
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in
kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be
viewed against the sky.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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).
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.
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
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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the
regional haze program will require longterm 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
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).
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41161
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
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
4 The preamble to the RHR provides additional
details about the deciview. (64 FR 35714–35725,
July 1, 1999).
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41162
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 https://
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 https://
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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 visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source
5 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41163
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
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
41164
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 capand-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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41165
equation were calculated separately for
each Class I area by VISTAS.
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.
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
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. https://
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 https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/
Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/
naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
41166
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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: https://www.metro4sesarm.org/vistas/
SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural
Conditions
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.
For the West Virginia Class I areas,
baseline visibility conditions on the 20
TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR THE WEST VIRGINIA CLASS I AREAS
Average for 20%
worst days
(dv) 9
Class I area
Average for 20%
best days
(dv)
Natural Background Conditions
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area ....................................................................................................................
Otter Creek Wilderness Area ..................................................................................................................
10.4
10.4
3.6
3.6
29.0
29.0
12.3
12.3
Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000–2004)
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area ....................................................................................................................
Otter Creek Wilderness Area ..................................................................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:09 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 × 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 statespecific 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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,
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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, offroad 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 onroad 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
PO 00000
8 See
NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250.
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41167
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 MACTequivalent 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 caseby-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.
Below, in Tables 2 and 3, are
summaries of the 2002 baseline and
2018 estimated emission inventories for
West Virginia.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
41168
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR WEST VIRGINIA
[Tons per year]
VOC
NH3
PM10
PM2.5
NOX
SO2
Point .........................................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .....................................................................................
Biogenics ..................................................................................................
15,775
60,443
45,284
18,566
357,850
453
9,963
2,036
9
N/A
22,076
115,346
1,481
1,850
N/A
15,523
21,049
1,068
1,728
N/A
277,589
12,687
63,525
33,329
2,776
570,153
11,667
2,635
2,112
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]
NH3
PM10
Point .........................................................................................................
Area (includes fires) .................................................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................................................................
Non-road Mobile ......................................................................................
Biogenics ..................................................................................................
17,952
62,806
14,652
14,086
357,850
593
11,504
2,268
13
N/A
28,084
124,566
747
1,292
N/A
20,165
24,507
369
1,198
N/A
94,600
15,716
15,530
25,710
2,776
177,517
12,849
231
56
N/A
Total ..................................................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VOC
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 https://www.epa.gov/
scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM2.5
NOX
SO2
https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/
eiguid/, 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
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41169
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
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
41170
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 nonutility boilers are the main sources of
SO2 emissions within the southeastern
United States. VISTAS developed a
methodology for West Virginia, which
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 humaninduced 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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 nonEGUs 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 costeffectiveness threshold for
reasonableness. For the precalciner
system, the control options and costs for
controls were developed by the MidAtlantic/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
11 See also West Virginia SIP Appendix H
fractional contribution analysis tables for each Class
I Area.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 nonair 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 PowerJohn 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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41171
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 capitalintensive 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
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
41172
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 visibilityimpairing 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 BARTeligible 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
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
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: https://www.src.com/verio/download/
download.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—WEST VIRGINIA BART-ELI- and, therefore, is considered to be
GIBLE
AND
SUBJECT-TO-BART subject to BART for PM10 only. Capitol
Cement did not submit an exemption
SOURCES—Continued
Columbia Chemicals.
Cabot Corporation.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
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
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41173
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
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
41174
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 fullproduction 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
TABLE 5—WEST VIRGINIA RPGS
[In deciviews]
Class I area
Baseline visibility,
20% worst days
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area .............
Otter Creek Wilderness Area .............
2018 Reasonable
progress goal,
20% worst days
(improvement from
baseline)
Uniform rate of
progress at 2018,
20% worst days
Baseline visibility,
20% best days
2018 Reasonable
progress goal,
20% best days
(improvement from
baseline)
29.0
21.7 (7.3)
24.7
12.3
11.1 (1.2)
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 resourceintensive 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,
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
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.
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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41175
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
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41176
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
revisited, or additional information and/
or changes will be addressed in the fiveyear 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.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 costeffective 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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),
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
41177
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
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
]]>Agencies
[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. https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https://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
https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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.
https://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 https://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: https://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 im
