Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12607 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule, 

pertaining to the update of the MVEBs, 

point and area source inventories, as 

well as the general conformity budgets 

for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 

Maintenance Area, does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 20, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05434 Filed 3–9–15; 08:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0275; A–1–FRL– 

9924–18–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode 

Island; Transportation Conformity 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of Rhode 

Island on February 21, 2014. This 

revision includes a regulation adopted 

by Rhode Island that establishes 

procedures to follow for transportation 

conformity determinations. Conformity 

to the purpose of the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not cause 

new air quality violations, worsen 

existing violations, or delay timely 

attainment of the national ambient air 

quality standards. The intended effect of 

this action is to propose to approve 

Rhode Island’s transportation 

conformity regulation into the Rhode 

Island SIP. This action is being taken in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2014–0275 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. Fax: 

(617) 918–0047. 

3. Mail: EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0275, 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. Hand Delivery or 

Courier. Deliver your comments to: 

Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. The 

Regional Office’s official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne Arnold, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional 

Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, 

(Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 

02109–3912, telephone number (617) 

918–1047, fax number (617) 918–1047, 

email arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: February 4, 2015. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05259 Filed 3–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0423; FRL 9924–23– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; West Virginia; 

Regional Haze Five-Year Progress 

Report State Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is issuing a supplement to 

its proposed approval of a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of West Virginia 

(West Virginia) through the West 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection (WVDEP). West Virginia’s 

SIP revision addresses requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s 

rules that require states to submit 

periodic reports describing progress 

towards reasonable progress goals 

established for regional haze and a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing implementation plan 

addressing regional haze (regional haze 

SIP). EPA’s proposed approval of West 

Virginia’s periodic report on progress 

towards reasonable progress goals and 

determination of adequacy of the state’s 

regional haze SIP was published in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

12608 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1West Virginia has two Class I areas within its 

borders: Dolly Sods Wilderness Area (Dolly Sods) 

and Otter Creek Wilderness Area (Otter Creek). 

West Virginia states in the progress report SIP that 

West Virginia sources were also identified, through 

an area of influence modeling analysis based on 

back trajectories, as potentially impacting six Class 

I areas in five neighboring states: Brigantine 

Wilderness in New Jersey; Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee; 

James River Face in Virginia; Linville Gorge in 

North Carolina; Mammath Cave National Park in 

Kentucky; and Shenandoah National Park in 

Virginia. 

2EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze 

on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713) known as the 

Regional Haze Rule. The Regional Haze Rule 

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. See 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309. 

Federal Register on March 14, 2014. 

This supplemental proposal addresses 

the potential effects on our proposed 

approval from the April 29, 2014 

decision of the United States Supreme 

Court (Supreme Court) remanding to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR) for further proceedings 

and the D.C. Circuit’s decision to lift the 

stay of CSAPR. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0423, by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0652, 

Marilyn Powers, Acting 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–2013– 

0423. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulation.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of West Virginia’s 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: 

Asrah Khadr, (215) 814–2071, or by 

email at khadr.asrah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

EPA previously proposed to approve 

a SIP revision by West Virginia 

reporting on progress made in the first 

implementation period towards meeting 

the reasonable progress goals for Class I 

areas in and outside West Virginia that 

are affected by emissions from West 

Virginia’s sources.1 79 FR 14460 (March 

14, 2014). This progress report SIP and 

accompanying cover letter also included 

a determination that West Virginia’s 

existing regional haze SIP requires no 

substantive revision to achieve the 

established regional haze visibility 

improvement and emissions reduction 

goals for 2018. 

States are required to submit a 

progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision every five years that evaluates 

progress towards the reasonable 

progress goals for each mandatory Class 

I area within the state and in each 

mandatory Class I area outside the state 

which may be affected by emissions 

from within the state. See 40 CFR 

51.308(g). In addition, the provisions 

under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to 

submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 

51.308(g) progress report, a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing regional haze SIP. The 

first progress report SIP revision is due 

five years after submittal of the initial 

regional haze SIP. WVDEP submitted its 

regional haze SIP on June 18, 2008 and 

submitted its progress report SIP 

revision on April 30, 2013. EPA 

proposed to find that the progress report 

SIP revision satisfied the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) in a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 

published in 2014. 79 FR 14460. This 

notice supplements EPA’s prior NPR by 

more fully explaining and soliciting 

comment on the basis for our proposed 

approval. 

II. Summary of West Virginia’s Progress 

Report SIP Revision and the NPR 

On April 30, 2013, West Virginia 

submitted a SIP revision describing the 

progress made towards the reasonable 

progress goals of Class I areas in and 

outside West Virginia that are affected 

by emissions from West Virginia’s 

sources, in accordance with 

requirements in the Regional Haze 

Rule.2 This progress report SIP also 

included an assessment of whether West 

Virginia’s existing regional haze SIP is 

sufficient to allow it and other nearby 

states with Class I areas to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals by the end of 

the first planning period. 

The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

require a progress report SIP to address 

seven elements. In the NPR, EPA 

proposed to approve the SIP as 

adequately addressing each element 

under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The seven 

elements and EPA’s proposed 

conclusions in the NPR are briefly 

summarized below. 

The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

require progress report SIPs to include 

a description of the status of measures 

in the regional haze implementation 

plan; a summary of the emissions 

reductions achieved; an assessment of 

the visibility conditions for each Class 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12609 

3CAIR required certain states like West Virginia 

to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) that significantly contribute 

to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 

25162 (May 12, 2005). 

4CSAPR was issued by EPA to replace CAIR and 

to help states reduce air pollution and attain CAA 

standards. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (final 

rule). CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the 

Eastern United States that significantly contribute 

to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and 

ozone NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

5Subsequent to the interim final rulemaking, EPA 

began implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 

2015. 

I area in the state; an analysis of the 

changes in emissions from sources and 

activities within the state; an assessment 

of any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have limited or 

impeded visibility improvement 

progress in Class I areas impacted by the 

state’s sources; an assessment of the 

sufficiency of the regional haze 

implementation plan to enable States to 

meet reasonable progress goals; and a 

review of the state’s visibility 

monitoring strategy. As explained in 

detail in the NPR, EPA proposed that 

West Virginia’s progress report SIP 

addressed each element and therefore 

satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(g). 

In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(h), states are required to submit, 

at the same time as the progress report 

SIP revision, a determination of the 

adequacy of their existing regional haze 

SIP and to take one of four possible 

actions based on information in the 

progress report. In its progress report 

SIP, West Virginia determined that its 

regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable 

it and nearby states to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals for Class I 

areas affected by West Virginia’s 

sources. The State accordingly provided 

EPA with a negative declaration that 

further revision of the existing regional 

haze implementation plan was not 

needed at this time. See 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(1). As explained in detail in 

the NPR, EPA proposed to determine 

that West Virginia had adequately 

addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the 

visibility data trends at the Class I areas 

impacted by West Virginia’s sources and 

the emissions trends of the largest 

emitters of visibility-impairing 

pollutants both indicate that the 

reasonable progress goals for 2018 for 

these areas will be met or exceeded. 

Therefore, in our NPR, EPA proposed to 

approve West Virginia’s progress report 

SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(g) and (h). 

III. Impact of CAIR and CSAPR on 

West Virginia’s Progress Report 

Decisions by the Courts regarding 

EPA rules addressing the interstate 

transport of pollutants have had a 

substantial impact on EPA’s review of 

the regional haze SIPs of many states. In 

2005, EPA issued regulations allowing 

states to rely on the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) to meet certain 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. 

See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).3 A 

number of states, including West 

Virginia, submitted regional haze SIPs 

consistent with these regulatory 

provisions. CAIR, however, was 

remanded to EPA in 2008, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), and replaced by 

CSAPR.4 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

Implementation of CSAPR was 

scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, 

when CSAPR would have superseded 

the CAIR program. However, numerous 

parties filed petitions for review of 

CSAPR, and at the end of 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR 

pending resolution of the petitions and 

directing EPA to continue to administer 

CAIR. Order of Dec. 30, 2011, in EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 

D.C. Cir. No. 11–1302. 

EPA finalized a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of West Virginia’s 

regional haze SIP on March 23, 2012, 77 

FR 16937, and issued a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) shortly 

thereafter to address the deficiencies 

identified in our limited disapproval of 

West Virginia and other states’ regional 

haze plans. 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). 

In our FIP, we relied on CSAPR to meet 

certain regional haze requirements 

notwithstanding that it was stayed at the 

time. As we explained, the 

determination that CSAPR will provide 

for greater reasonable progress than 

BART is based on a forward looking 

projection of emissions and any year up 

until 2018 would have been an 

acceptable point of comparison. Id. at 

33647. When we issued this FIP, we 

anticipated that the requirements of 

CSAPR would be implemented prior to 

2018. Id. Following these EPA actions, 

however, the D.C. Circuit issued a 

decision in EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 

vacating CSAPR and ordering EPA to 

continue administering CAIR pending 

the promulgation of a valid 

replacement. On April 29, 2014, the 

Supreme Court reversed the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision on CSAPR and 

remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for 

further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 

(2014). After the Supreme Court 

decision, EPA filed a motion to lift the 

stay on CSAPR and asked the D.C. 

Circuit to toll CSAPR’s compliance 

deadlines by three years, so that the 

Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 

2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 

2013), and the Phase 2 emissions 

budgets apply in 2017 and beyond 

(instead of 2014 and beyond). On 

October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit 

granted EPA’s motion. Order of October 

23, 2014, in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 

11–1302. EPA issued an interim final 

rule to clarify how EPA will implement 

CSAPR consistent with the D.C. 

Circuit’s order granting EPA’s motion 

requesting lifting the stay and tolling the 

rule’s deadlines. 79 FR 71663 

(December 3, 2014) (interim final 

rulemaking).5

Throughout the litigation described 

above, EPA has continued to implement 

CAIR. Thus, at the time that West 

Virginia submitted its progress report 

SIP revision, CAIR was in effect, and the 

State included an assessment of the 

emission reductions from the 

implementation of CAIR in its report. 

The progress report discussed the status 

of the litigation concerning CAIR and 

CSAPR, but because CSAPR was not at 

that time in effect, West Virginia did not 

take emissions reductions from CSAPR 

into account in assessing its regional 

haze implementation plan. For the same 

reason, in our NPR, EPA did not assess 

at that time the impact of CSAPR or our 

FIP on the ability of West Virginia and 

its neighbors to meet their reasonable 

progress goals. 

The purpose of this supplemental 

proposal is to seek comment on the 

effect of the D.C. Circuit’s October 23, 

2014 order and the effect of the status 

of CAIR and CSAPR on our assessment 

of West Virginia’s progress report SIP 

and its determination that its existing 

implementation plan need not be 

revised at this time. 

Given the complex background 

summarized above, EPA is proposing to 

determine that West Virginia 

appropriately took CAIR into account in 

its progress report SIP in describing the 

status of the implementation of 

measures included in its regional haze 

SIP and in summarizing the emissions 

reductions achieved. CAIR was in effect 

during the 2008–2013 period addressed 

by West Virginia’s progress report. EPA 

approved West Virginia’s regulations 

implementing CAIR as part of the West 

Virginia SIP in 2009, 74 FR 38536 

(August 4, 2009), and neither West 

Virginia nor EPA has taken any action 

to remove CAIR from the West Virginia 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

12610 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

6EPA discussed in the NPR the significance of 

reductions in SO2 as West Virginia and the 

Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association 

of the Southeast (VISTAS) identified SO2 as the 

largest contributor pollutant to visibility 

impairment in West Virginia specifically and in the 

VISTAS region generally. 

SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2520(c). Therefore, 

West Virginia appropriately evaluated 

and relied on CAIR reductions to 

demonstrate the State’s progress 

towards meeting its reasonable progress 

goals.6

The State’s progress report also 

demonstrated Class I areas in other 

states impacted by West Virginia 

sources were on track to meet their 

reasonable progress goals as discussed 

in the NPR. EPA’s intention in requiring 

the progress reports pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(g) was to ensure that emission 

management measures in the regional 

haze SIPs are being implemented on 

schedule and that visibility 

improvement appears to be consistent 

with the reasonable progress goals. 64 

FR 35713, 35747 (July 1, 1999). As the 

D.C. Circuit only recently lifted the stay 

on CSAPR, CAIR was in effect in West 

Virginia through 2014, providing the 

emission reductions relied upon in West 

Virginia’s regional haze SIP. Thus, West 

Virginia appropriately took into account 

CAIR reductions in assessing the 

implementation of measures in the 

regional haze SIP for the 2008–2013 

timeframe, and EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to rely on CAIR emission 

reductions for purposes of assessing the 

adequacy of West Virginia’s progress 

report demonstrating progress up to the 

end of 2014 as CAIR remained effective 

until that date, pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(g) and (h). 

In addition, EPA also believes 

reliance upon CAIR reductions to show 

West Virginia’s progress towards 

meeting its RPGs from 2008–2013 is 

consistent with our prior actions. 

During the continued implementation of 

CAIR per the direction of the D.C. 

Circuit through October 2014, EPA has 

approved redesignations of areas to 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

which states relied on CAIR as an 

‘‘enforceable measure.’’ See 77 FR 76415 

(December 28, 2012) (redesignation of 

Huntingdon-Ashland, West Virginia); 78 

FR 59841 (September 30, 2013) 

(redesignation of Wheeling, West 

Virginia); and 78 FR 56168 (September 

12, 2013) (redesignation of Parkersburg, 

West Virginia). While EPA did 

previously state in a rulemaking action 

on the Florida regional haze SIP that a 

five year progress report may be the 

appropriate time to address changes, if 

necessary, for reasonable progress goal 

demonstrations and long term strategies, 

EPA does not believe the remanded 

status of CAIR or the imminent 

implementation of its replacement 

CSAPR at this time impacts the 

adequacy of the West Virginia regional 

haze SIP to address reasonable progress 

from 2008 through 2013 or even through 

2014 or to meet requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(g) and (h) because CAIR was 

implemented during the time period 

evaluated by West Virginia for its 

progress report. See generally 77 FR 

73369, 73371 (December 10, 2012) 

(proposed action on Florida haze SIP). 

EPA’s December 3, 2014 interim final 

rule sunsets CAIR compliance 

requirements on a schedule coordinated 

with the implementation of CSAPR 

compliance requirements. 79 FR at 

71665. As noted above, EPA’s June 7, 

2012 FIP replaced West Virginia’s 

reliance upon CAIR for regional haze 

requirements with reliance on CSAPR to 

meet those requirements for the longterm. Because CSAPR should result in 

greater emissions reductions of SO2 and 

NOX than CAIR throughout the affected 

region including in West Virginia and 

neighboring states, EPA expects West 

Virginia to maintain and continue its 

progress towards its reasonable progress 

goals for 2018 through continued, and 

additional, SO2 and NOX reductions. 

See generally 76 FR 48208 

(promulgating CSAPR). Although the 

implementation of CSAPR was tolled for 

three years, the Rule is now being 

implemented, and by 2018, the end of 

the first regional haze implementation 

period, CSAPR will reduce emissions of 

SO2 and NOX from EGUS in West 

Virginia by the same amount assumed 

by EPA when it issued the CSAPR FIP 

for West Virginia in June 2012. See 76 

FR 48208 (CSAPR promulgation) and 77 

FR 33642 (limited disapproval of West 

Virginia regional haze SIP and FIP for 

West Virginia for certain regional haze 

requirements). See February 11, 2015 

Memorandum to File in Support of the 

Proposed Approval of West Virginia’s 

Regional Haze Progress Report, which is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking action and available online 

at www.regulations.gov. 

At the present time, the requirements 

of CSAPR apply to sources in West 

Virginia under the terms of a FIP, 

because West Virginia to date has not 

incorporated the CSAPR requirements 

into its SIP. The Regional Haze Rule 

requires an assessment of whether the 

current ‘‘implementation plan’’ is 

sufficient to enable the states to meet all 

established reasonable progress goals. 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). The term 

‘‘implementation plan’’ is defined for 

purposes of the Regional Haze Rule to 

mean ‘‘any [SIP], [FIP], or Tribal 

Implementation Plan.’’ 40 CFR 51.301. 

EPA is, therefore, proposing to 

determine that we may consider 

measures in any issued FIP as well as 

those in a state’s regional haze SIP in 

assessing the adequacy of the ‘‘existing 

implementation plan’’ under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(6) and (h). Because CSAPR 

will ensure the control of SO2 and NOX

emissions reductions relied upon by 

West Virginia and other states in setting 

their reasonable progress goals 

beginning in January 2015 at least 

through the remainder of the first 

implementation period in 2018, EPA is 

proposing to approve West Virginia’s 

finding that there is no need for revision 

of the existing implementation plan for 

West Virginia to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals for the Class I areas in 

West Virginia and in nearby states 

impacted by West Virginia sources. 

We note that the Regional Haze Rule 

provides for periodic evaluation and 

assessment of a state’s reasonable 

progress towards achieving the national 

goal of natural visibility conditions by 

2064 for CAA section 169A(b). The 

regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 

51.308 required states to submit initial 

SIPs in 2007 providing for reasonable 

progress towards the national goal for 

the first implementation period from 

2008 through 2018. 40 CFR 51.308(b). 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f), SIP 

revisions reassessing each state’s 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal are due every ten years 

after that time. For such subsequent 

regional haze SIPs, 40 CFR 51.308(f) 

requires each state to reassess its 

reasonable progress and all the elements 

of its regional haze SIP required by 40 

CFR 51.308(d), taking into account 

improvements in monitors and control 

technology, assessing the state’s actual 

progress and effectiveness of its long 

term strategy, and revising reasonable 

progress goals as necessary. 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(1)–(3). Therefore, West 

Virginia has the opportunity to reassess 

its reasonable progress goals and the 

adequacy of its regional haze SIP, 

including its reliance upon CAIR and 

CSAPR for emission reductions from 

EGUs, when it prepares and submits its 

second regional haze SIP to cover the 

implementation period from 2018 

through 2028. As discussed in the NPR 

and in West Virginia’s progress report, 

emissions of SO2 from EGUs are far 

below original projections for 2018. In 

addition, the visibility data provided by 

West Virginia show the Class I areas 

impacted by West Virginia sources are 

all currently on track to achieve their 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12611 

7Many coal-fired EGUs have announced plans to 

deactivate by April 2015 including several plants in 

West Virginia, including Albright, Kammer, 

Kanawha River, Phillip Sporn and Rivesville, as 

well as plants or individual units at plants in states 

neighboring West Virginia including Glen Lynn, 

Walter C. Beckjord, Muskingum River, Elrama, 

Clinch River, Eastlake, Ashtabula, and Big Sandy. 

Additional SO2 reductions will likely result from 

the deactivations of these coal-fired EGUs. For a 

listing of EGUs planning to deactivate in the states 

which are part of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., a 

regional transmission organization which 

coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity 

within states including West Virginia, see http://

www.pjm.com/planning/generation-deactivation/

gd-summaries.aspx. 

8EPA previously determined that CSAPR (like 

CAIR before it) was ‘‘better than BART’’ because it 

would achieve greater reasonable progress toward 

the national goal than would source-specific BART. 

77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). EPA is not taking 

comment in this supplemental proposal on whether 

the West Virginia implementation plan meets the 

BART requirements or whether CSAPR is an 

alternative measure to source-specific BART in 

accordance with 40 CFR 52.301(e)(2). 

reasonable progress goals.7 EPA is 

seeking comment only on the issues 

raised in this supplemental proposal 

and is not reopening for comment other 

issues addressed in its prior proposal. 

IV. Summary of Reproposal 

In summary, EPA proposes to approve 

West Virginia’s progress report SIP 

revision submitted on April 30, 2013. 

EPA solicits comments on this 

supplemental proposal, but only with 

respect to the specific issues raised in 

this notice concerning our interpretation 

of the term ‘‘implementation plan’’ in 

the Regional Haze Rule, and our 

agreement with West Virginia’s 

assessment that the current regional 

haze SIP for West Virginia in 

combination with our CSAPR FIP need 

not be revised at this time to achieve the 

established reasonable progress goals for 

West Virginia and other nearby states in 

light of the status of CAIR through 2014 

and CSAPR starting in 2015. EPA is not 

reopening the comment period on any 

other aspect of the March 14, 2014 NPR 

as an adequate opportunity to comment 

on those issues has already been 

provided. The purpose of this 

supplemental proposal is limited to 

review of the West Virginia progress 

report in light of the Supreme Court’s 

decision in EME Homer City and the 

D.C. Circuit’s recent Order lifting the 

stay on CSAPR. This supplemental 

proposal reflects EPA’s desire for public 

input into how it should proceed in 

light of those decisions when acting on 

the pending progress report, in 

particular the requirements that the 

State assess whether the current 

implementation plan is sufficient to 

ensure that reasonable progress goals are 

met. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h).8

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; 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 supplemental 

proposed rule pertaining to West 

Virginia’s regional haze progress report 

does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 2, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05468 Filed 3–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 141219999–5174–01] 

RIN 0648–BE74 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries off West Coast States; 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015 

Tribal Fishery for Pacific Whiting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed 

rule for the 2015 Pacific whiting fishery 

under the authority of the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP), the Magnuson Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the Pacific 

Whiting Act of 2006. This proposed rule 

would allocate 17.5% of the U.S. Total 

Allowable Catch of Pacific whiting for 

2015 to Pacific Coast Indian tribes that 

have a Treaty right to harvest 

groundfish, and would revise the 

regulation authorizing NMFS to 

reapportion unused allocation from the 

tribal allocation to the non-tribal sectors 

earlier in the fishing season. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received no later than April 9, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2015–0017, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS