Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 27062-27065 [2013-10935]

Download as PDF 27062 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 8, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 24, 2013. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart T—Louisiana 2. In § 52.970, the second table in paragraph (e) entitled, ‘‘EPA APPROVED LOUISIANA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES’’, is amended by adding one new entry to the end of the table to read as follows: ■ § 52.970 Identification of plan. * * * (e) * * * * * * * * * * EPA-APPROVED LOUISIANA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area * * 1997 8-Hour Ozone Section 110 Maintenance Plan. * Pointe Coupee Parish, LA ........... 3. Section 52.975 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows: ■ § 52.975 Redesignations and maintenance plans; ozone. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES * * * * * (l) Approval. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) submitted a 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the area of Pointe Coupee Parish on February 28, 2007. The area is designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8hour ozone standard. EPA determined this request for Pointe Coupee Parish was complete on May 2, 2007. The maintenance plan meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, and is consistent with EPA’s maintenance plan guidance VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:51 May 08, 2013 Jkt 229001 State submittal date/effective date * 2/28/2007 EPA Approval date * * 5/9/2013 ............................ [Insert FR page number where document begins]. document dated May 20, 2005. The EPA therefore approved the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the area of Pointe Coupee Parish on May 9, 2013. [FR Doc. 2013–10832 Filed 5–8–13; 8:45 am] * ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0113; FRL–9810–7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration BILLING CODE 6560–50–P PO 00000 Explanation Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: EPA is disapproving a narrow portion of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia on August 31, 2011. EPA is taking this final action because the SUMMARY: Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM 09MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES submittal does not satisfy the Federal requirement for inclusion of condensable emissions of particulate matter (condensables) within the definition of ‘‘regulated new source review (NSR) pollutant’’ for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and particulate matter emissions less than or equal to ten micrometers in diameter (PM10). In addition, because West Virginia’s August 31, 2011 SIP revision does not adequately account for condensable emissions within the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant,’’ EPA is also disapproving specific Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) portions of related infrastructure SIP submissions required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) to implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 lead and ozone NAAQS. This action is being taken under the CAA. DATES: This final rule is effective on June 10, 2013. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0113. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection 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: Mike Gordon, (215) 814–2039, or by email at gordon.mike@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background EPA granted full approval of West Virginia’s August 2011 SIP submission and the PSD portions of related infrastructure submissions required by the CAA on October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63736) but took no action on the narrow issue of the requirement to include condensable emissions in the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ in the State’s PSD program for PM2.5 and PM10. EPA has subsequently determined that the omission of condensables from this definition in the state’s regulation at 45CSR14 is cause for disapproval of that narrow portion of the SIP submittal and the related infrastructure submissions. As a result of this omission, on March 15, 2013 (78 FR 16449), EPA proposed disapproval of a narrow portion of the August 2011 SIP revision, as well as specific PSD portions of related infrastructure submissions required by the CAA to implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 lead and ozone NAAQS. A full discussion on the background of this action and other related actions are available in the NPR. No comments were received during the public comment period. II. Summary of SIP Revision This action disapproves the remaining narrow portion of the August 2011 SIP submission in which EPA took no action in the October 17, 2012 final rule, specifically, the requirement to include condensables in the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ Also, because condensables must be included in a PSD program by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J), EPA is disapproving specific PSD portions of related infrastructure submissions which are necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 lead and ozone NAAQS. III. Final Action EPA is disapproving the narrow portion of West Virginia’s August 2011 SIP submission related to the failure to include condensables in the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ for PM2.5 and PM10. EPA is disapproving this narrow portion of West Virginia’s August 2011 SIP submission because the definition does not satisfy the requirement that PM2.5 and PM10 emissions must include gaseous emissions which condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures. Because these grounds for disapproval are narrow and extend only to the lack of condensables within the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’, this disapproval does not alter EPA’s October 17, 2012 approval of the remaining portions of West Virginia’s August 2011 SIP submittal. Additionally, EPA is disapproving specific portions of West Virginia’s infrastructure SIP submissions dated December 3, 2007, December 11, 2007, April 3, 2008, October 1, 2009, October 26, 2011, and February 17, 2012 (collectively, the West Virginia infrastructure SIP submissions) which address certain obligations set forth at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) relating to the West Virginia PSD permit program. Because West Virginia’s definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ in 45CSR14 does not include condensable particulate emissions, EPA is determining that West Virginia’s infrastructure SIP submissions do not meet certain statutory and regulatory obligations relating to a PSD permit program set forth at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J). EPA is disapproving the narrow portion of the October 26, 2011 and February 17, 2012 infrastructure SIP submissions from West Virginia because West Virginia has not met its obligations relating to the PSD permit program pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) due to the failure to include condensables in the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ EPA is also disapproving the narrow portions of the December 3, 2007, December 11, 2007, April 3, 2008, and October 1, 2009 infrastructure SIP submissions from West Virginia because West Virginia has not met its obligations relating to the PSD permit program pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS due to the failure to include condensables in the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ Specific infrastructure elements which EPA is disapproving and their submittal dates are listed in the following table. Infrastructure element(s) disapproved in this action Submittal dates NAAQS December 11, 2007 .............................................................................................. April 3, 2008 December 3, 2007 ................................................................................................ December 11, 2007 October 1, 2009 .................................................................................................... 1997 PM2.5 ................ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 1997 ozone ............... 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 2006 PM2.5 ................ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:51 May 08, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 27063 E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM 09MYR1 27064 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations Infrastructure element(s) disapproved in this action Submittal dates NAAQS October 26, 2011 .................................................................................................. February 17, 2012 ................................................................................................ 2008 lead .................. 2008 ozone ............... Under CAA section 179(a), final disapproval of a submission that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (CAA sections 171–193), or is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) starts a sanction clock. The specific provisions in the submissions EPA is disapproving, due to the omission of condensables in the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’, were not submitted by West Virginia to meet either of those requirements. Therefore, this disapproval does not trigger sanctions under CAA section 179. The full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the requirement under CAA section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) no later than two years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. From discussions with West Virginia, EPA anticipates that the State will make a submission rectifying the deficiency regarding condensables. Further, EPA anticipates acting on West Virginia’s submissions within the two year time frame prior to our FIP obligation on this very narrow issue. In the interim, EPA expects the State to account for condensables in emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 consistent with Federal regulations for PSD permitting. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES A. General Requirements Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this case, EPA disapproving a narrow portion of the West Virginia August 2011 SIP submittal and PSD portions of other related infrastructure submissions required by the CAA that do not meet Federal requirements. This action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:51 May 08, 2013 Jkt 229001 Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this action does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because this rule to disapprove a narrow provision in the August 2011 SIP submission and to disapprove narrow portions related to the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ in the West Virginia infrastructure SIP submissions is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that this action will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J). 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J). that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 8, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action disapproving a narrow portion of the August 2011 West Virginia SIP submissions and certain PSD related infrastructure submissions may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 25, 2013. W.C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM 09MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations Subpart XX—West Virginia 2. In § 52.2522, paragraph (j) is added to read as follows. ■ § 52.2522 Approval status. * * * * * (j)(1) EPA is disapproving a narrow portion of West Virginia’s August 31, 2011 submittal because it does not satisfy the requirement that emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 shall include gaseous emissions which condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures. This disapproval extends only to the lack of condensable emissions within the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant,’’ found at 45CSR14 section 2.66, and does not alter EPA’s October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63736) approval of the remaining portions of West Virginia’s August 2011 SIP submittal. (2) EPA is disapproving specific portions of West Virginia’s infrastructure SIP submissions dated December 3, 2007, December 11, 2007, April 3, 2008, October 1, 2009, October 26, 2011, and February 17, 2012 which address certain obligations set forth at Submittal dates [FR Doc. 2013–10935 Filed 5–8–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0140; FRL–9810–8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina; Control Techniques Guidelines and Reasonably Available Control Technology Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: EPA is approving several State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted to EPA by the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), to address the nitrogen oxides (NOX) reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for the North Carolina portion of the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina— South Carolina 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘bi-state Charlotte Area’’). The bistate Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) includes six full counties and one partial county in North Carolina; and one partial county in South Carolina. Additionally, EPA is approving in part, and conditionally approving in part, several SIP revisions to address the volatile organic compounds (VOC) RACT requirements tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:51 May 08, 2013 Jkt 229001 CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) relating to the West Virginia PSD permit program. Because West Virginia’s definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ in 45CSR14 does not address condensables for PM2.5 and PM10 emissions, EPA is determining that West Virginia’s infrastructure SIP submissions do not meet certain statutory and regulatory obligations relating to a PSD permit program set forth at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) for the narrow issue of condensables as set forth in the following table. Infrastructure element(s) disapproved in this action NAAQS December 11, 2007; April 3, 2008 ....................................................................... December 3, 2007; December 11, 2007 .............................................................. October 1, 2009 .................................................................................................... October 26, 2011 .................................................................................................. February 17, 2012 ................................................................................................ 1997 1997 2006 2008 2008 PM2.5 ................ ozone ............... PM2.5 ................ lead .................. ozone ............... which include related control technology guidelines (CTG) requirements. Together, these SIP revisions establish the RACT requirements for sources located in the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. In a separate rulemaking, EPA has already taken action on RACT and CTG requirements for the South Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area. EPA has evaluated the revisions to North Carolina’s SIP, and has made the determination that they are consistent, with the exception of applicability for some CTG VOC sources, with statutory and regulatory requirements and EPA guidance. With respect to the applicability provisions for the CTG VOC sources noted above, EPA is finalizing a conditional approval of these provisions. DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective June 10, 2013. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 2009–0140. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information 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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 27065 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J). 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J). Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–9029. Ms. Spann can also be reached via electronic mail at spann.jane@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. This Action III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the bi-state Charlotte Area as a moderate nonattainment area with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1 See 69 FR 1 Portions of the bi-state Charlotte Area were previously designated as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Area was subsequently redesignated to attainment for the 1hour ozone NAAQS, and a maintenance plan was approved into the North Carolina SIP. The original Charlotte–Gastonia, North Carolina 1-hour moderate ozone nonattainment area consisted of Mecklenburg and Gaston counties in North Carolina. E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM 09MYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27062-27065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10935]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0113; FRL-9810-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
West Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is disapproving a narrow portion of a State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia on August 
31, 2011. EPA is taking this final action because the

[[Page 27063]]

submittal does not satisfy the Federal requirement for inclusion of 
condensable emissions of particulate matter (condensables) within the 
definition of ``regulated new source review (NSR) pollutant'' for fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5) and particulate matter emissions 
less than or equal to ten micrometers in diameter (PM10). In 
addition, because West Virginia's August 31, 2011 SIP revision does not 
adequately account for condensable emissions within the definition of 
``regulated NSR pollutant,'' EPA is also disapproving specific 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) portions of related 
infrastructure SIP submissions required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) to 
implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) and ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS), the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 lead and ozone 
NAAQS. This action is being taken under the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0113. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic 
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential 
business information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy for public inspection 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: Mike Gordon, (215) 814-2039, or by 
email at gordon.mike@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    EPA granted full approval of West Virginia's August 2011 SIP 
submission and the PSD portions of related infrastructure submissions 
required by the CAA on October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63736) but took no 
action on the narrow issue of the requirement to include condensable 
emissions in the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' in the 
State's PSD program for PM2.5 and PM10. EPA has 
subsequently determined that the omission of condensables from this 
definition in the state's regulation at 45CSR14 is cause for 
disapproval of that narrow portion of the SIP submittal and the related 
infrastructure submissions.
    As a result of this omission, on March 15, 2013 (78 FR 16449), EPA 
proposed disapproval of a narrow portion of the August 2011 SIP 
revision, as well as specific PSD portions of related infrastructure 
submissions required by the CAA to implement, maintain, and enforce the 
1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 
and the 2008 lead and ozone NAAQS. A full discussion on the background 
of this action and other related actions are available in the NPR. No 
comments were received during the public comment period.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    This action disapproves the remaining narrow portion of the August 
2011 SIP submission in which EPA took no action in the October 17, 2012 
final rule, specifically, the requirement to include condensables in 
the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' Also, because 
condensables must be included in a PSD program by CAA section 
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J), EPA is disapproving specific PSD 
portions of related infrastructure submissions which are necessary to 
implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone 
NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 lead and ozone 
NAAQS.

III. Final Action

    EPA is disapproving the narrow portion of West Virginia's August 
2011 SIP submission related to the failure to include condensables in 
the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' for PM2.5 and 
PM10. EPA is disapproving this narrow portion of West 
Virginia's August 2011 SIP submission because the definition does not 
satisfy the requirement that PM2.5 and PM10 
emissions must include gaseous emissions which condense to form 
particulate matter at ambient temperatures. Because these grounds for 
disapproval are narrow and extend only to the lack of condensables 
within the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'', this disapproval 
does not alter EPA's October 17, 2012 approval of the remaining 
portions of West Virginia's August 2011 SIP submittal.
    Additionally, EPA is disapproving specific portions of West 
Virginia's infrastructure SIP submissions dated December 3, 2007, 
December 11, 2007, April 3, 2008, October 1, 2009, October 26, 2011, 
and February 17, 2012 (collectively, the West Virginia infrastructure 
SIP submissions) which address certain obligations set forth at CAA 
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) relating to the West Virginia 
PSD permit program. Because West Virginia's definition of ``regulated 
NSR pollutant'' in 45CSR14 does not include condensable particulate 
emissions, EPA is determining that West Virginia's infrastructure SIP 
submissions do not meet certain statutory and regulatory obligations 
relating to a PSD permit program set forth at CAA sections 
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J). EPA is disapproving the narrow 
portion of the October 26, 2011 and February 17, 2012 infrastructure 
SIP submissions from West Virginia because West Virginia has not met 
its obligations relating to the PSD permit program pursuant to CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) due to the failure to include 
condensables in the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' EPA is 
also disapproving the narrow portions of the December 3, 2007, December 
11, 2007, April 3, 2008, and October 1, 2009 infrastructure SIP 
submissions from West Virginia because West Virginia has not met its 
obligations relating to the PSD permit program pursuant to CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS due to the failure to include 
condensables in the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' Specific 
infrastructure elements which EPA is disapproving and their submittal 
dates are listed in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Infrastructure element(s) disapproved in this
        Submittal dates                      NAAQS                                   action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 11, 2007..............  1997 PM2.5...................  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
April 3, 2008
December 3, 2007...............  1997 ozone...................  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
December 11, 2007
October 1, 2009................  2006 PM2.5...................  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

[[Page 27064]]

 
October 26, 2011...............  2008 lead....................  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J).
February 17, 2012..............  2008 ozone...................  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 179(a), final disapproval of a submission that 
addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (CAA sections 171-193), or is 
required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as 
described in CAA section 110(k)(5) starts a sanction clock. The 
specific provisions in the submissions EPA is disapproving, due to the 
omission of condensables in the definition of ``regulated NSR 
pollutant'', were not submitted by West Virginia to meet either of 
those requirements. Therefore, this disapproval does not trigger 
sanctions under CAA section 179.
    The full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the 
requirement under CAA section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a federal 
implementation plan (FIP) no later than two years from the date of the 
disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the 
Administrator approves the plan or plan revision before the 
Administrator promulgates such FIP. From discussions with West 
Virginia, EPA anticipates that the State will make a submission 
rectifying the deficiency regarding condensables. Further, EPA 
anticipates acting on West Virginia's submissions within the two year 
time frame prior to our FIP obligation on this very narrow issue. In 
the interim, EPA expects the State to account for condensables in 
emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 consistent with 
Federal regulations for PSD permitting.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this case, EPA 
disapproving a narrow portion of the West Virginia August 2011 SIP 
submittal and PSD portions of other related infrastructure submissions 
required by the CAA that do not meet Federal requirements. This action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this action does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because this rule to disapprove a narrow provision in the August 2011 
SIP submission and to disapprove narrow portions related to the 
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' in the West Virginia 
infrastructure SIP submissions is not approved to apply in Indian 
country located in the state, and EPA notes that this action will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by July 8, 2013. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action disapproving a narrow portion of the August 2011 
West Virginia SIP submissions and certain PSD related infrastructure 
submissions may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 25, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

[[Page 27065]]

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2522, paragraph (j) is added to read as follows.


Sec.  52.2522  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (j)(1) EPA is disapproving a narrow portion of West Virginia's 
August 31, 2011 submittal because it does not satisfy the requirement 
that emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 shall include 
gaseous emissions which condense to form particulate matter at ambient 
temperatures. This disapproval extends only to the lack of condensable 
emissions within the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant,'' found 
at 45CSR14 section 2.66, and does not alter EPA's October 17, 2012 (77 
FR 63736) approval of the remaining portions of West Virginia's August 
2011 SIP submittal.
    (2) EPA is disapproving specific portions of West Virginia's 
infrastructure SIP submissions dated December 3, 2007, December 11, 
2007, April 3, 2008, October 1, 2009, October 26, 2011, and February 
17, 2012 which address certain obligations set forth at CAA sections 
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) relating to the West Virginia PSD 
permit program. Because West Virginia's definition of ``regulated NSR 
pollutant'' in 45CSR14 does not address condensables for 
PM2.5 and PM10 emissions, EPA is determining that 
West Virginia's infrastructure SIP submissions do not meet certain 
statutory and regulatory obligations relating to a PSD permit program 
set forth at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) for the 
narrow issue of condensables as set forth in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Infrastructure element(s) disapproved in this
        Submittal dates                      NAAQS                                   action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 11, 2007; April 3,      1997 PM2.5...................  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
 2008.
December 3, 2007; December 11,   1997 ozone...................  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
 2007.
October 1, 2009................  2006 PM2.5...................  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
October 26, 2011...............  2008 lead....................  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J).
February 17, 2012..............  2008 ozone...................  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-10935 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.