27734 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TSD, EPA identified the potential 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors identified in the 

2016 PM2.5 Memorandum, and then 

evaluated them to determine if 

Pennsylvania’s emissions could 

potentially contribute to nonattainment 

and maintenance problems in 2021, the 

attainment year for moderate PM2.5

nonattainment areas for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA analysis 

identified the following areas as 

potential nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors: (i) 17 potential 

receptors in California; (ii) one potential 

receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho; 

(iii) data gaps exist for the monitors in 

four counties in Florida; and (iv) data 

gaps exist for all monitors in Illinois. 

For the 17 receptors in California and 

one potential receptor in Idaho, based 

on EPA’s evaluation of distance and 

wind direction, EPA proposes to 

conclude that Pennsylvania’s emissions 

do not significantly impact those 

receptors. For the four counties in 

Florida and the monitors in Illinois with 

data gaps, EPA initially treats those 

receptors as potential nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors, but it is unlikely 

that they will be nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors in 2021 because 

the most recent air quality data (from 

2015–2017 for Florida and from 2015– 

2016 for Illinois) indicates that all 

monitors are likely attaining the PM2.5

NAAQS and are therefore unlikely to be 

nonattainment or maintenance concerns 

in 2021. Therefore, EPA proposes to 

conclude that Pennsylvania emissions 

will not contribute to any of those 

receptors. For these reasons, EPA is 

proposing to find that Pennsylvania’s 

existing SIP provisions as identified in 

the October 11, 2017 SIP submittal are 

adequate to prevent its emission sources 

from significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance in another state with 

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Pennsylvania SIP revision addressing 

the interstate transport requirements for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which was submitted 

on October 11, 2017. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

IV. 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 approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866. 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule, 

regarding Pennsylvania’s interstate 

transport SIP for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, 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, Particulate matter. 

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

Dated: June 5, 2018. 

Cosmo Servidio, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12706 Filed 6–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0217; EPA–R03– 

OAR–2014–0299; EPA–R03–OAR–2016– 

0373; FRL–9979–39—Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Regional Haze Plan and 

Visibility Requirements for the 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide and the 2012 Fine 

Particulate Matter Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of West Virginia 

(West Virginia) to change reliance on 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to 

reliance on the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR) with the purpose of 

addressing certain regional haze 

requirements and visibility protection 

requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Upon EPA’s final 

approval of this SIP revision, EPA is 

proposing to convert the Agency’s June 

7, 2012 limited approval/limited 

disapproval of West Virginia’s regional 

haze SIP to a full approval; and EPA is 

proposing to remove the federal 

implementation plan (FIP) for West 

Virginia issued to address deficiencies 

previously identified in the Agency’s 

limited approval/limited disapproval of 

the State’s regional haze SIP revision. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to approve 

the portions of two previous SIP 

revisions submitted by West Virginia to 

address visibility protection 

requirements for the 2010 SO2 and the 

2012 particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. 

These proposed actions are supported 

by EPA’s recent final determination that 

a state’s participation in CSAPR 

continues to meet EPA’s regional haze 

criteria to qualify as an alternative to the 

application of best available retrofit 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 27735 

1 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Mandatory Class I federal 

areas are defined as national parks exceeding 6,000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 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 mandatory Class 

I federal areas where visibility is identified as an 

important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). 

When we use the term Class I area in this action, 

we mean a mandatory Class I federal area. 

2These regulations are the reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment (RAVI) provisions. 45 FR 

80084 (December 2, 1980). 

3 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 

40 CFR part 51, subpart P). 

4 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a), CAA 

sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B. 

5States that have a federal Class I area, listed by 

the Administrator under subsection 169A(a)(2) of 

the CAA, and/or states from which the emissions 

may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of visibility in any 

federal Class I area. 

6A BART-eligible source is any one of the 26 

specified source categories listed in appendix Y to 

40 CFR part 51, Guidelines for BART 

Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule. 

7SO2 and NOX are considered the most 

significant visibility impairing pollutants. 

8 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). 

9 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). 

10CAIR involved the District of Columbia and 27 

eastern states, including West Virginia, in several 

regional cap and trade programs to reduce SO2 and 

NOX emissions that contribute to the nonattainment 

or interfere with the maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

11West Virginia submitted a comprehensive 

regional haze SIP revision on June 18, 2008. 

12North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). 

13North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). 

technology (BART). This action is being 

taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 16, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2018–0217; EPA–R03–OAR– 

2014–0299; and/or EPA–R03–OAR– 

2016–0373 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emlyn Ve ́lez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or 

by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 16, 2015, the State of West 

Virginia via the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(WVDEP) submitted a revision to update 

its regional haze plan and to meet the 

visibility protection requirements in 

section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA. 

I. Background 

A. Regional Haze and the Relationship 

With CAIR and CSAPR 

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 which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ 1 On December 

2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to 

address visibility impairment in Class I 

areas that are reasonably attributable to 

a single source or small group of 

sources.2 Then, in 1990 Congress added 

section 169B to the CAA to address 

regional haze issues. EPA subsequently 

promulgated regulations pursuant to 

section 169B to address regional haze, 

known as the Regional Haze Rule.3 The 

Regional Haze Rule focuses on visibility 

impairment that is caused by the 

emission of air pollutants from 

numerous sources located over a wide 

geographic area, requiring states to 

establish goals and emission reduction 

strategies for improving visibility in 

Class I areas. 

The CAA requires each state to 

develop, and submit for approval by 

EPA, a SIP to meet various air quality 

requirements, including the protection 

of visibility in Class I areas.4 Section 

169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires that 

applicable states 5 SIPs must contain 

such emission limits, schedules of 

compliance and other measures as may 

be necessary to make reasonable 

progress toward meeting the national 

visibility goal. Such measures include 

the application of BART by any BARTeligible sources 6 that emit air pollutants 

such as SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 7

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area. The BART 

provisions of the Regional Haze Rule 

generally direct states to follow these 

steps to address the BART requirements: 

(1) Identify all BART-eligible sources; 

(2) determine which of those sources 

may reasonably be anticipated to cause 

or contribute to visibility impairment in 

a Class I area, and are therefore subject 

to BART requirements; (3) determine 

source-specific BART for each source 

that is subject to BART requirements; 

and (4) include the emission limitations 

reflecting those BART determinations in 

their SIPs.8 However, the Regional Haze 

Rule also provides states with the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program 

instead of requiring source-specific 

BART controls, as long as the alternative 

provides greater reasonable progress 

towards the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas than BART. See 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2). 

In a 2005 revision to the Regional 

Haze Rule,9 EPA demonstrated that 

CAIR10 would achieve greater 

reasonable progress than BART. This is 

often referred to as the CAIR-betterthan-BART determination. Based on this 

determination, EPA amended its 

regulations so that states participating in 

the CAIR cap-and trade programs under 

40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA 

approved CAIR SIP, or states that 

remain subject to a CAIR federal trading 

program under 40 CFR part 97, need not 

require affected BART-eligible electric 

generating units (EGUs) to install, 

operate, and maintain BART for 

emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4). Several states subject to 

CAIR, including West Virginia, relied on 

the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an 

alternative to BART to achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards national 

visibility goals for their first SIP revision 

submitted to address regional haze.11

In July 2008, the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated CAIR.12 In 

December 2008, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded CAIR back to EPA without 

vacatur while a replacement rule 

consistent with the Court’s opinion was 

developed.13 On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 

48208), EPA promulgated CSAPR to 

replace CAIR and issued federal trading 

programs to implement the rule in the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
27736 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

14CSAPR is a regional cap-and-trade program 

meant to replace CAIR. Similar to CAIR, it is 

focused on eastern states (including West Virginia) 

and requires participants to limit their statewide 

emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate 

transported air pollution unlawfully impacting 

another state’s ability to attain or maintain the 

following NAAQS: 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

15 77 FR 33656 (June 7, 2012). 

16The D.C. Circuit recently upheld EPA’s CSAPRbetter-than-BART determination. See Utility Air 

Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12–1342 (D.C. Cir. 

March 20, 2018). 

17EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 

F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

18EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 

S. Ct. 1584 (2014). 

19EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 

F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

20Following the April 2014 Supreme Court 

decision, EPA filed a motion asking the D.C. Circuit 

to delay, by three years, all CSAPR compliance 

deadlines that had not passed as of the approval 

date of the stay on CSAPR. On October 23, 2014, 

the D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s request, and on 

December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663), in an interim final 

rule, EPA set the updated effective date of CSAPR 

as January 1, 2015 and delayed the implementation 

of CSAPR Phase 1 to 2015 and CSAPR Phase 2 to 

2017. In accordance with the interim final rule, the 

sunset date for CAIR was December 31, 2014, and 

EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 

2015. 

21 77 FR 16937 (March 23, 2012). 

22 77 FR 33643 (June 7, 2012). 

23 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

states subject to CSAPR.14 CSAPR was 

to become effective January 1, 2012; 

however, as discussed later, the timing 

of CSAPR’s implementation was 

impacted by a number of court actions. 

After promulgating CSAPR, EPA 

conducted a technical analysis to 

determine whether compliance with 

CSAPR would satisfy the requirements 

of the Regional Haze Rule addressing 

alternatives to BART. In a June 7, 2012 

action, EPA amended the Regional Haze 

Rule to provide that participation by a 

state’s EGUs in a CSAPR trading 

program for a given pollutant—either a 

CSAPR federal trading program or an 

integrated CSAPR state trading program 

implemented through an approved 

CSAPR SIP revision—qualifies as a 

BART alternative for those EGUs for that 

pollutant.15 See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

Since EPA promulgated this 

amendment, both states and EPA have 

relied on the CSAPR-better-than-BART 

determination to satisfy the BART 

requirements for states that participate 

in CSAPR.16

Numerous parties filed petitions for 

review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, 

and on August 21, 2012, the court 

issued its ruling, vacating and 

remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering 

continued implementation of CAIR.17

The D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of CSAPR was 

reversed by the United States Supreme 

Court on April 29, 2014, and the case 

was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to 

resolve remaining issues in accordance 

with the high court’s ruling.18 On 

remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed 

CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated 

without vacating some of the CSAPR 

budgets to a number of states.19 The 

remanded budgets included the Phase 2 

SO2 emissions budgets for four states 

and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX

budgets for 11 states, including those for 

West Virginia. The D.C. Circuit 

litigation ultimately delayed 

implementation of CSAPR for three 

years, from January 1, 2012, when 

CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs were 

originally scheduled to replace the CAIR 

cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 

2015.20 Thus, the rule’s Phase 2 budgets 

that were originally promulgated to 

begin on January 1, 2014 began on 

January 1, 2017 instead. EPA has now 

taken all actions necessary to respond to 

the D.C. Circuit’s remand of the various 

CSAPR budgets. On September 29, 

2017, EPA finalized a determination 

that the changes to the scope of CSAPR 

coverage following the remand of 

certain of the budgets by the D.C. Circuit 

do not alter EPA’s conclusion that 

CSAPR remains better-than-BART. In 

sum, EGU participation in a CSAPR 

trading program remains available as an 

alternative to BART for states 

participating in CSAPR. 

B. Partial Regional Haze Federal 

Implementation Plan 

On March 23, 2012, EPA finalized a 

limited approval and a limited 

disapproval of a SIP revision submitted 

by WVDEP on June 18, 2008 addressing 

regional haze program requirements.21

The limited disapproval of this SIP 

revision was based upon West Virginia’s 

reliance on CAIR as an alternative to 

BART and as a measure for reasonable 

progress. On June 7, 2012, EPA finalized 

a determination that for states covered 

by CSAPR, including West Virginia, 

CSAPR achieves greater reasonable 

progress towards the national visibility 

goals in Class I areas than sourcespecific BART. In this same June 7, 2012 

action, EPA also promulgated FIPs that 

replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance 

on CSAPR to meet BART and reasonable 

progress requirements, to address 

deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional 

haze SIPs for several states, including 

West Virginia.22 Consequently, for West 

Virginia and other states, this particular 

aspect of their regional haze 

requirements was satisfied by EPA’s 

issuance of a FIP (hereafter referred to 

as partial RH FIP). 

On September 16, 2015, the State of 

West Virginia submitted a revision to its 

Regional Haze SIP to change its present 

reliance from CAIR to CSAPR for the 

purpose of meeting BART for regional 

haze and addressing reasonable progress 

requirements, thereby eliminating West 

Virginia’s need for the partial RH FIP. 

The SIP revision was also submitted to 

meet outstanding visibility protection 

requirements under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Prong 4 

Requirement 

The CAA requires states to submit, 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, SIP revisions 

meeting the applicable elements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2). SIP revisions 

that are intended to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a) of the 

CAA are often referred to as 

infrastructure SIPs and the elements 

under 110(a) are referred to as 

infrastructure requirements. Several of 

these applicable elements are delineated 

within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the 

CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

SIPs to contain adequate provisions to 

prohibit emissions in that state from 

having certain adverse air quality effects 

on neighboring states due to interstate 

transport of air pollution. There are four 

prongs within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

the CAA; section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

contains prongs 1 and 2, while section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 

4. This rulemaking action addresses 

prong 4 which is related to interference 

with measures by another state to 

protect visibility. Prong 4 requires that 

a state’s SIP include adequate 

provisions prohibiting any source or 

other type of emissions activity in one 

state from interfering with measures to 

protect visibility required to be included 

in another state’s SIP. One way in which 

prong 4 can be satisfied is if a state has 

a fully approved regional haze program 

within its SIP.23

As part of its September 16, 2015 SIP 

submittal, which is the subject of this 

rulemaking action, West Virginia 

demonstrates it should receive full 

approval of its regional haze SIP with 

the switch to reliance upon CSAPR and 

requests amending the portion of its 

October 16, 2014 infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS to 

address the prong 4 requirement for 

visibility protection for this NAAQS. 

West Virginia’s infrastructure SIP 

revision submittal for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, submitted to EPA subsequently 

on May 12, 2017, refers to the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 27737 

24See 79 FR 62022 (October 16, 2014) and 82 FR 

22076 (May 12, 2017). 25West Virginia was included in the CSAPR 

federal trading programs on August 8, 2011. 76 FR 

48208. 

26 In this respect, the September 16, 2015 SIP 

submission therefore mirrors the requirements from 

EPA’s partial RH FIP for West Virginia. 

27See 82 FR 45481 (September 29, 2017) 

(reaffirming CSAPR better-than-BART). See Utility 

Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12–1342 (D.C. 

Cir. March 20, 2018) (upholding CSAPR as betterthan-BART). 

28All other applicable infrastructure 

requirements under section 110(a)(2) for the West 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS and the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS have 

been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. 

September 16, 2015 SIP submittal to 

address prong 4 for visibility protection 

for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Because 

West Virginia did not have a fully 

approved regional haze program at the 

time EPA took action to approve the 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA determined 

that it would take separate action on the 

prong 4 portions of the October 16, 2014 

SIP submission for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS and of the May 12, 2017 SIP 

submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

at a later date.24

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

West Virginia submitted a SIP 

revision on September 16, 2015 to 

correct its regional haze and visibility 

protection deficiencies. West Virginia 

submitted the September 16, 2015 SIP 

revision seeking to correct the 

deficiencies identified in EPA’s July 13, 

2011 limited disapproval action, by 

replacing reliance on CAIR with 

reliance on CSAPR in its regional haze 

SIP.25 Specifically, the September 16, 

2015 submittal changes the West 

Virginia regional haze program to state 

that West Virginia is relying on CSAPR 

in its regional haze SIP to meet the 

BART and reasonable progress 

requirements to support visibility 

improvement progress goals for West 

Virginia’s Class I areas, Dolly Sods and 

Otter Creek Wilderness Areas. 

Additionally, the September 16, 2015 

submittal revises the prong 4 portion of 

the infrastructure SIP revision for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, which had been 

submitted on October 16, 2014, to 

address this visibility protection 

requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). At the time of this SIP 

submittal, West Virginia did not have a 

fully approved regional haze program as 

the Agency had issued a limited 

disapproval of the State’s regional haze 

plan on July 13, 2011, due to its reliance 

on CAIR. Subsequently, West Virginia 

submitted to EPA on May 12, 2017 a SIP 

revision regarding the infrastructure 

requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2) 

for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. In order to 

meet prong 4 for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, this May 12, 2017 submittal 

referred to West Virginia’s September 

16, 2015 regional haze SIP submittal to 

address the prong 4 requirement in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

The State’s September 16, 2015 

regional haze SIP revision replaces 

reliance upon CAIR for reliance upon 

CSAPR to address the deficiencies 

identified in EPA’s limited disapproval 

of West Virginia’s regional haze SIP.26

EPA is proposing to find that this 

revision would satisfy the NOX and SO2

BART and reasonable progress 

requirements for EGUs in West Virginia 

and therefore make West Virginia’s 

regional haze program fully approvable. 

Upon EPA’s final approval of this SIP, 

West Virginia will have a SIP in place 

to address all of its regional haze 

requirements. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to find that West Virginia’s 

reliance in its SIP upon CSAPR for 

certain BART and reasonable progress 

requirements is in accordance with the 

CAA and Regional Haze Rule 

requirements (including 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)) as EPA has recently 

affirmed that CSAPR remains betterthan-BART for regional haze 

requirements.27 Because West Virginia’s 

approved regional haze SIP will address 

EGU BART and reasonable progress 

requirements upon final approval of the 

September 16, 2015 SIP submission, 

EPA is proposing to convert the 

Agency’s prior limited disapproval/ 

limited approval of West Virginia’s 

regional haze SIP to a full approval. EPA 

is also proposing to remove EPA’s June 

7, 2012 partial RH FIP for West Virginia, 

which replaced reliance on CAIR with 

reliance on CSAPR to address the 

previously deficient regional haze 

requirements. Additionally, EPA is 

proposing to approve the prong 4 

portion of West Virginia’s October 16, 

2014 SIP submission, as revised by the 

September 16, 2015 regional haze 

submittal, for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and 

to approve the prong 4 portion of the 

May 12, 2017 SIP submission for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which refers to the 

September 16, 2015 regional haze 

submittal, as the West Virginia SIP will 

now meet prong 4 visibility 

requirements of the CAA with a fully 

approved regional haze SIP.28

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to take the following 

actions: (1) Approve West Virginia’s 

September 16, 2015 SIP submission to 

change reliance on CAIR to reliance on 

CSAPR for certain elements of West 

Virginia’s regional haze program; (2) 

convert EPA’s limited approval/limited 

disapproval of West Virginia’s regional 

haze program to a full approval; (3) 

approve West Virginia’s October 16, 

2014 SIP submission, as revised 

September 16, 2015, as satisfying prong 

4 regarding visibility protection for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS; (4) approve West 

Virginia’s May 12, 2017 infrastructure 

SIP submission, referring to the 

September 16, 2015 regional haze SIP 

submission, as satisfying prong 4 

regarding visibility protection for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; and (5) remove 

West Virginia’s partial regional haze FIP 

which replaced certain regional haze 

requirements as these requirements will 

now be contained within the West 

Virginia regional haze SIP upon final 

approval of the September 16, 2015 SIP 

submittal. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

IV. 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 approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866. 

• 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
27738 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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, 

addressing West Virginia’s regional haze 

requirements and visibility protection 

for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS and the withdrawal of the West 

Virginia regional haze regional FIP, 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. In addition, pursuant to CAA 

section 307(d)(1)(B), EPA proposes to 

determine that this action is subject to 

the provisions of section 307(d). Section 

307(d) establishes procedural 

requirements specific to certain 

rulemaking actions under the CAA. 

Furthermore, section 307(d)(1)(V) of the 

CAA provides that the provisions of 

section 307(d) apply to ‘‘such other 

actions as the Administrator may 

determine.’’ EPA proposes that the 

provisions of 307(d) apply to EPA’s 

action on the West Virginia SIP revision. 

The withdrawal of the provisions of the 

West Virginia regional haze regional FIP 

is subject to the requirements of CAA 

section 307(d), as it constitutes a 

revision to a FIP under section 110(c) of 

the CAA. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

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

Dated: May 30, 2018. 

Cosmo Servidio, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12812 Filed 6–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0282; FRL–9979– 

34—Region 9] 

Approval of Air Plan Revisions; 

Approvals and Promulgations: 

California; Placer County Air Pollution 

Control District; Stationary Source 

Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns the District’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permitting program for new and 

modified sources of air pollution. We 

are proposing action on a local rule 

under the Clean Air Act as amended in 

1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

July 16, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2018–0282 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Laura Yannayon, at yannayon.laura@

epa.gov. For comments submitted at 

Regulations.gov, follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

removed or edited from Regulations.gov. 

For either manner of submission, the 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. The EPA’s Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

amended by the PCAPCD and submitted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB), which is the governor’s 

designee for California SIP submittals. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Rule No. Rule title Adopted or 

amended Submitted 

518 ......................... Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program .......................................... 10/13/16 1/24/17 

On April 17, 2017, the EPA 

determined that CARB’s January 24, 

2017, SIP submittal package conformed 

to the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix V, which must be met 

before formal EPA review. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS