Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 32019 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 4, 2015. 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur 

dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 21, 2015. 

Becky Weber, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA is amending 40 CFR 

part 52 as set forth below: 

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 R—Kansas 

■ 2. In § 52.870(e), the table is amended 

by adding entry (40) in numerical order 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable 

geographic area 

or nonattainment 

area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(40) Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS.

Statewide ............ 7/15/2013 6/5/2015 and [Insert Federal Register citation].This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), except as noted. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13402 Filed 6–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0423; FRL–9928–78– 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving 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 

(RPGs) established for regional haze and 

a determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing implementation plan 

addressing regional haze (regional haze 

SIP). EPA is approving West Virginia’s 

SIP revision on the basis that it 

addresses the progress report and 

adequacy determination requirements 

for the first implementation period for 

regional haze. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

6, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0423. 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 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 

On March 14, 2014 (79 FR 14460), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for West Virginia. In 

the NPR, EPA proposed approval of 

West Virginia’s progress report SIP, a 

report on progress made in the first 

implementation period towards RPGs 

for Class I areas in and outside West 

Virginia that are affected by emissions 

from West Virginia’s sources. 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. On March 10, 2015 (80 

FR 12607), EPA published a 

supplemental NPR (SNPR) to address 

the potential effects on EPA’s proposed 

approval from the April 29, 2014 

decision of the United States Supreme 

Court in EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014), 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

32020 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

2On March 23, 2012 (77 FR 16937), EPA finalized 

a limited approval and limited disapproval of West 

Virginia’s June 18, 2008 regional haze SIP to 

address the first implementation period for regional 

haze. The limited disapproval of this SIP was a 

result of West Virginia’s reliance on the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) to meet certain regional haze 

requirements. EPA addressed the deficiency 

identified in its limited disapproval with a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) in June 2012 that 

replaced West Virginia’s reliance upon CAIR for 

certain regional haze requirements with reliance on 

CSAPR, a rule that EPA had issued in August 2011 

to replace CAIR. 77 FR 33642 (final action on FIP 

to address certain West Virginia regional haze 

requirements). See also 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 

2011) (promulgation of CSAPR). The D.C. Circuit 

initially vacated CSAPR in EME Homer City 

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

cert. granted 133 U.S. 2857 (2013); however, the 

United States Supreme Court vacated that decision 

and remanded CSAPR to the D.C. Circuit for further 

proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). EPA began 

implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015 after the 

D.C. Circuit lifted its stay of CSAPR. Order of Dec. 

30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11–1302. See 79 FR 71663 

(December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking 

clarifying how EPA will implement CSAPR). 

States are required to submit a 

progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision every five years that evaluates 

progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area 1 within 

the state and in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area outside the state which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

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 

is due five years after submittal of the 

initial regional haze SIP. On June 18, 

2008, WVDEP submitted its regional 

haze SIP in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.2 The 

progress report SIP revision was 

submitted by West Virginia on April 30, 

2013 and EPA finds that it satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

(h). 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On April 30, 2013, West Virginia 

submitted a SIP revision to describe the 

progress made towards the RPGs of 

Class I areas in and outside West 

Virginia that are affected by emissions 

from West Virginia’s sources. This 

progress report SIP also includes a 

determination of the adequacy of West 

Virginia’s existing regional haze SIP to 

achieve these RPGs. 

West Virginia has two Class I areas 

within its borders: Dolly Sods 

Wilderness Area (Dolly Sods) and Otter 

Creek Wilderness Area (Otter Creek). 

West Virginia notes in its progress 

report SIP that West Virginia sources 

were also identified, through an area of 

influence modeling analysis based on 

back trajectories, as potentially 

impacting nine Class I areas in five 

neighboring states: Brigantine 

Wilderness in New Jersey; Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park in North 

Carolina and Tennessee; James River 

Face Wilderness in Virginia; Linville 

Gorge Wilderness in North Carolina; 

Monmouth Cave National Park in 

Kentucky; and Shenandoah National 

Park in Virginia. 

The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

require a progress report SIP to address 

seven elements. EPA finds that West 

Virginia’s progress report SIP addressed 

each element under 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

The seven elements and EPA’s 

conclusion are briefly summarized in 

this rulemaking action. 

The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

require progress report SIPs to include 

a description of the status of measures 

in the approved regional haze SIP; a 

summary of emissions reductions 

achieved; an assessment of visibility 

conditions for each Class I area in the 

state; an analysis of 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 progress 

in Class I areas impacted by the state’s 

sources; an assessment of the 

sufficiency of the approved regional 

haze SIP; and a review of the state’s 

visibility monitoring strategy. As 

explained in detail in the NPR and 

SNPR, EPA finds that West Virginia’s 

progress report SIP addressed each 

element and has 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, 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. 

One possible action is submission of a 

negative declaration to EPA that no 

further substantive revision to the state’s 

existing regional haze SIP is needed. In 

its progress report SIP, West Virginia 

submitted a negative declaration that it 

had determined that its existing regional 

haze SIP requires no further substantive 

revision to achieve the RPGs for the 

Class I areas that are affected by 

emissions from West Virginia’s sources. 

As explained in detail in the NPR and 

SNPR, EPA concludes West Virginia has 

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 RPGs for 2018 will be 

met or exceeded. Therefore, EPA 

concludes West Virginia’s progress 

report SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(h). 

III. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Response 

EPA received comments on the 

proposed rulemaking from the National 

Parks Conservation Association 

(Commenter). EPA received one 

additional comment on the SNPR from 

the Utility Air Regulatory Group (SNPR 

Commenter) in support of our proposed 

approval of West Virginia’s progress 

report SIP. A full set of the comments 

are provided in the docket for today’s 

final rulemaking action. A summary of 

the significant comments and the EPA’s 

response is provided in this section. 

Comment 1: The Commenter stated 

that EPA should not approve the West 

Virginia progress report SIP revision 

because the report does not meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). 

The Commenter stated that the West 

Virginia progress report describes 

emission reductions in West Virginia 

but fails to detail specific reductions 

achieved through implementation of 

specific measures in the West Virginia 

regional haze SIP. The Commenter 

claimed that the report neither 

demonstrates that regional haze SIP 

measures are working nor that emission 

reductions or visibility improvement 

has resulted from enforceable 

requirements in the regional haze SIP 

and not from ‘‘outside forces.’’ More 

specifically, the Commenter claimed 

that reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions from electric generating units 

(EGUs) from shutdowns, fuel switches, 

addition of controls, shifting to the use 

of cleaner units, and a decrease in 

demand were reversible if not 

enforceable. The Commenter stated that 

emission reductions cannot be relied 

upon if not enforceable and requested 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 32021 

3EPA 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. The requirements for regional haze, 

are included in the EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. 

4The April 30, 2013 West Virginia State 

Implementation Plan Revision: Regional Haze 5- 

Year Periodic Report (Covering 2008–2013) is 

available in the docket for this action under Docket 

ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0423 at 

www.regulations.gov. 

EPA provide the reductions achieved 

through West Virginia’s regional haze 

SIP and revise its assessment of the SIP 

revision. 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s assertion that West 

Virginia has not adequately addressed 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) and that EPA 

cannot accordingly approve West 

Virginia’s progress report SIP revision. 

While the regulations at 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(2) require a summary of the 

emissions reductions achieved in the 

State through the measures in its 

regional haze SIP, there is nothing in 

this provision requiring a detailed, 

causal analysis pinpointing or linking 

specific emission reductions to specific 

regional haze SIP measures. 

The Commenter’s argument that West 

Virginia must specifically link specific 

measures in the regional haze SIP to 

changes in emissions inventories 

appears to be based on a 

misunderstanding of the design of the 

regional haze program and the purpose 

of the mid-course progress reports. The 

Regional Haze Rule,3 which was 

promulgated not long after the 1997 

revisions to the ozone and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), was explicitly designed to 

facilitate the coordination of emissions 

management strategies for regional haze 

with those needed to implement the 

NAAQS. See 64 FR 35713, 35719–35720 

(July 1, 1999). More generally, the 

Regional Haze Rule requires states to 

include all air quality improvements 

that will be achieved by other CAA 

programs and state air pollution control 

requirements when assessing changes in 

emissions and visibility to be expected 

during the period of their regional haze 

SIP. 64 FR at 35733. This is made clear 

in the haze regulations which prohibit 

states from adopting RPGs that represent 

less visibility improvement than is 

expected to result from the 

implementation of other CAA 

requirements during the planning 

period. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Given 

this requirement, states included in 

their regional haze SIPs a number of 

Federal regulations for mobile and 

stationary sources that had or were 

expected to come into effect after the 

baseline period and that were 

anticipated to result in reductions of 

visibility impairing pollutants. These 

regulations included NAAQS 

implementation measures as well as 

other CAA requirements, such as mobile 

source rules or Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) standards 

issued under section 112 of the CAA. As 

one example, West Virginia included 

the 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule (40 

CFR part 86, subpart P) in its regional 

haze SIP. In short, West Virginia, like 

other states, included in its regional 

haze SIP anticipated reductions in 

emissions during the baseline period 

arising from a number of Federal CAA 

measures, as required by the Regional 

Haze Rule. 

Thus, states took into account the 

anticipated emission reductions from a 

wide range of measures in setting RPGs. 

To model the visibility conditions in 

2018, states used projected emission 

inventories based on the best 

information before them. Given the 

significance of emissions from EGUs to 

haze, these projections were based, 

among other things, on expected 

changes in energy demand affecting 

capacity utilization of power plants. 

States also sometimes included an 

emissions buffer to account for the 

possible construction of new power 

plants or other types of facilities. States 

also took into account, as described 

above, anticipated reductions in 

emissions resulting from recent Federal 

rules addressing non-visibility-related 

requirements, as well as consent 

decrees, significant measures adopted 

by nearby states, and specific measures 

to address the requirements of the 

visibility program. Thus, in forecasting 

future visibility conditions, states by 

design took into account to the extent 

possible ‘‘outside forces’’ and a host of 

overlapping requirements. 

The type of analysis underlying the 

RPGs established in regional haze SIPs 

involves a fair degree of uncertainty. 

Changes in economic conditions, 

fluctuations in the prices of fuels, the 

remand of a CAA requirement by the 

courts, or the passage of new regulations 

are some of the factors that may occur 

and can impact emissions inventories 

and monitored visibility conditions. 

Because each planning period requires 

states to forecast conditions ten or more 

years into the future, EPA required a 

mid-course evaluation of the regional 

haze SIP. The purpose of this progress 

report is to ‘‘check in’’ with the state to 

determine whether its predictions 

regarding future visibility remain 

reasonable. The purpose of summarizing 

the emission reductions throughout the 

state from the measures in the regional 

haze SIP is to ensure that no dramatic 

or unexpected changes in emissions 

inventories have rendered unreliable the 

earlier projections of emissions in 2018. 

In West Virginia’s progress report SIP, 

EPA believes that West Virginia 

provided a reasonable summary of the 

emissions reductions achieved through 

the measures in the regional haze SIP by 

focusing on those sources of pollution 

in West Virginia with the biggest impact 

on haze. Because SO2 reductions from 

West Virginia’s EGUs are the key 

element of the State’s regional haze 

strategy, West Virginia discussed in its 

progress report SIP the significant SO2

emission reductions from EGUs since 

submittal of its regional haze SIP. West 

Virginia also assessed the downward 

trend in SO2 emissions and emission 

rates in comparison to heat input at 

these units and concluded that overall 

the data was indicative of the fact that 

the reductions were the result of the 

installation of controls and the use of 

cleaner burning fuels. See West Virginia 

State Implementation Plan Revision: 

Regional Haze 5-Year Periodic Report 

(Covering 2008–2013), Section 3.1 

(April 30, 2013).4 Although West 

Virginia did not link the specific 

reductions in the emission inventory to 

specific measures in the regional haze 

SIP, the State did provide sourcespecific information on its coal-fired 

EGUs. For each of these units, the State 

identified the current status of SO2

controls and shutdowns as well as the 

projected controls and shutdowns that 

were included in the regional haze SIP 

and the estimated and actual SO2

reductions in 2009. Id. at p. 50–54 

(Table 16). Taken together, West 

Virginia’s summary of the SO2

emissions reductions is sufficient for the 

State to evaluate whether a mid-course 

correction in its regional haze SIP is 

needed. As West Virginia’s progress 

report shows, emissions from these 

facilities are far below what was 

projected in its regional haze SIP. 

In sum, EPA believes West Virginia 

sufficiently discussed in its progress 

report SIP revision the emission 

reductions which resulted from 

numerous enforceable requirements 

found in West Virginia’s regional haze 

SIP. West Virginia’s progress report 

discussed numerous Federal and state 

enforceable measures which are 

responsible for emissions reductions in 

West Virginia and which correlate to 

improved visibility, including the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the MACT 

programs, the 2007 Heavy-Duty 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

32022 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Highway Rule, the Tier 2 Vehicle and 

Gasoline Sulfur Program, the Nonroad 

Diesel Emissions Program, Federal 

consent decrees resolving enforcement 

actions against EGUs and non-EGUs, 

and best available retrofit technology 

(BART) determinations for sources 

located within West Virginia and 

sources within a 300 kilometer radius of 

Dolly Sods or Otter Creek. West Virginia 

also discussed measures from other 

states which may have led to 

improvements in visibility in West 

Virginia including the North Carolina 

Clean Smokestacks Act, Georgia 

Multipollutant Control for Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units, and the 

Maryland Health Air Act. Additionally, 

in the progress report SIP revision, West 

Virginia compared emissions 

inventories prior to and after the 

implementation of the West Virginia 

regional haze SIP, a comparison which 

show substantial reductions of visibility 

impairing pollutants such as SO2. 

Because West Virginia demonstrated 

that these Federal and state enforceable 

measures contributed to the reduction of 

visibility impairing pollutants, EPA 

concluded West Virginia adequately 

addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) 

requirements for a summary of emission 

reductions in its progress report. 

Therefore, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter that EPA should disapprove 

the West Virginia progress report SIP 

and disagrees that any further 

information or analysis is required. 

Comment 2: The Commenter claimed 

that West Virginia’s progress report SIP 

revision did not meet the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) because the 

visibility data presented by West 

Virginia appeared within a graph and 

was not quantified in a clear, tabular 

manner. Additionally, the Commenter 

alleged that West Virginia confused the 

State’s meeting the uniform rate of 

progress for Dolly Sods with meeting its 

RPGs for Dolly Sods. 

Response 2: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter that West Virginia’s 

progress report is lacking the required 

visibility monitoring information. 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(3) only requires the 

following visibility information 

measured in deciviews for the most 

impaired and least impaired days for 

each area, with values expressed in 

terms of five-year averages of these 

annual values: (1) Current visibility 

conditions; (2) the difference between 

current visibility conditions and 

baseline visibility conditions; and (3) 

the change in visibility impairment over 

the past five years. Nothing in 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3) requires the visibility data 

to be provided in a tabular format versus 

the graphical format used in West 

Virginia’s progress report, even though 

a tabular format may facilitate easier 

review of the data. As stated in our NPR, 

EPA believes West Virginia provided 

the required information regarding 

visibility conditions and changes to 

meet the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3), specifically providing 

current conditions based on the latest 

available Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments 

(IMPROVE) monitoring data, the 

difference between current visibility 

conditions and baseline visibility 

conditions, and the change in visibility 

impairment over the most recent fiveyear period for which data were 

available at the time of the progress 

report SIP development. EPA believes 

the fact that West Virginia presented 

this required information in graphical 

versus tabular format is irrelevant to our 

conclusion that West Virginia 

adequately addressed requirements in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3). 

While EPA agrees with the 

Commenter that West Virginia did 

inadvertently state in its progress report 

on one page that it was ‘‘meeting its 

RPG’’ for Dolly Sods, EPA disagrees 

with the Commenter that this 

inadvertent misstatement has any 

relevance to the approvability of West 

Virginia’s progress report generally or to 

EPA’s conclusion that West Virginia has 

adequately addressed 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3) specifically, as discussed 

above and in the NPR. In particular, 

West Virginia appropriately discussed 

in its progress report on pages 59–60 

that an analysis of emission reductions 

in West Virginia indicates the State is 

‘‘on track to achieve’’ its RPGs in 2018 

at Dolly Sods and that visibility at Dolly 

Sods had significantly improved since 

2000. West Virginia’s progress report 

also graphically displayed the State’s 

progress towards its RPGs at Dolly Sods 

for 2018. Therefore, EPA views West 

Virginia’s statement on one page that it 

is ‘‘meeting its RPG’’ as inadvertent as 

West Virginia otherwise correctly 

indicates in its progress report that the 

State is making reasonable progress 

towards achieving its RPGs at Dolly 

Sods by 2018. While EPA agrees with 

the Commenter that further emission 

reductions are needed for West Virginia 

to meet fully its RPGs in 2018 at Dolly 

Sods, EPA concludes West Virginia has 

appropriately addressed requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) through its 

presentation of visibility data. For the 

reasons discussed herein and discussed 

more fully in our NPR, EPA believes 

West Virginia has demonstrated it is 

making reasonable progress towards its 

RPGs for 2018 and that its regional haze 

SIP is adequate, requiring no further 

revisions to the regional haze SIP at this 

time for any additional emission 

reduction requirements for West 

Virginia to achieve its RPGs in 2018. 

Comment 3: The Commenter alleged 

that West Virginia’s progress report SIP 

revision does not meet the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). The Commenter 

stated EPA’s proposed approval of the 

West Virginia progress report SIP left 

unexamined West Virginia’s assertion it 

was on track to meet its RPGs in 2018 

and did not quantify how West 

Virginia’s emission reductions would 

continue. The Commenter claimed 

projected emission reductions from 

Federal programs like the Mercury Air 

Toxics Standards (MATS) for EGUs and 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS are neither 

quantified nor necessarily enforceable at 

this time. Additionally, the Commenter 

claimed none of the annual visibility 

values for Dolly Sods have yet achieved 

the RPGs and therefore more emission 

reductions are necessary. The 

Commenter stated EPA and West 

Virginia have avoided review of 

additional controls on non-EGUs. The 

Commenter claimed West Virginia 

committed in its regional haze SIP to 

review the need for additional controls 

at non-EGUs in its five-year progress 

report and therefore inappropriately 

concluded in its progress report that 

additional controls on non-EGUs were 

not necessary as the State was making 

progress towards its RPGs. The 

Commenter asserted some initial 

emission reductions in West Virginia 

resulted from controls, fuel switches, 

and shutdowns and as such are not 

necessarily enforceable. The Commenter 

claimed these reductions must be 

maintained and additional enforceable 

reductions from other source categories 

will be needed for West Virginia to meet 

its RPGs by 2018. 

Response 3: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s allegation that West 

Virginia’s progress report SIP revision 

does not meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this 

requirement as a qualitative assessment, 

in light of emissions and visibility 

trends and other readily available 

information, as to whether Class I areas 

affected by emissions from a state are on 

track to meet their 2018 RPGs. See 

Progress Report General Principles at 

16. In the NPR, EPA has described in 

detail how West Virginia’s progress 

report provides such a qualitative 

assessment that Class I areas impacted 

by emissions from sources within West 

Virginia are on track to achieve their 

RPGs by 2018. EPA believes that the 

enforceable measures taken into 

consideration in West Virginia’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 32023 

5Specifically, EPA notes that additional SO2

reductions will likely result from full 

implementation of MATS at West Virginia EGUs 

during this first implementation period, from 

additional implementation and restrictions from 

full implementation of CSAPR which EPA 

promulgated to replace CAIR and is expected to 

lead to further EGU emission reductions, and from 

West Virginia’s implementation of the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. Many coal-fired EGUs have also 

announced plans to deactivate in 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. 

6To address interstate transport of air pollution, 

CAIR required certain states like West Virginia to 

reduce emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

that significantly contribute to downwind 

nonattainment of the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5 and 

ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR relied 

upon cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and 

NOX emissions and applied to 27 eastern states, 

including West Virginia. EPA approved West 

Virginia’s regulations implementing CAIR as part of 

the Federally enforceable West Virginia SIP on 

August 4, 2009. 74 FR 38536. 

7Although EPA gave limited approval to West 

Virginia’s regional haze SIP (77 FR 16932) due to 

West Virginia’s reliance on CAIR, a limited 

approval results in approval of the entire SIP 

submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and 

prevent EPA from granting a full approval pursuant 

to sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) of the CAA and 

EPA’s long-standing guidance. See Processing of 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Air 

Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I–X, 

September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/

memoranda/siproc.pdf. Thus, the limited approval 

status of West Virginia’s regional haze SIP does not 

impact EPA’s approval of this five year progress 

report SIP in any way. 

8 In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit initially vacated 

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

Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA 

without vacatur to preserve the environmental 

benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 

550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Therefore, 

EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s 

characterization that CAIR was ‘‘struck down’’ by 

the Court as the D.C. Circuit has only remanded 

CAIR to EPA without vacatur. After much litigation 

on CAIR and its replacement CSAPR as discussed 

in our SNPR, EPA sunset CAIR in December 2014 

and began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 

2015. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim 

final rulemaking EPA issued an interim final rule 

to clarify how EPA will implement CSAPR 

consistent with the Order from D.C. Circuit order 

lifting the stay of CSAPR and tolling the rule’s 

deadlines). 

regional haze SIP have contributed to 

the significant emissions reductions in 

West Virginia as discussed in the 

progress report, particularly in the 

visibility impairing pollutant SO2. West 

Virginia’s progress report included 

visibility monitoring data which clearly 

demonstrated visibility improvement in 

the Class I areas impacted by West 

Virginia sources. Even though the 

emissions reductions are not 

specifically linked causally to specific 

measures in the State’s regional haze 

SIP, EPA believes the enforceable 

measures in the SIP do and will 

continue to contribute to reductions in 

emissions and that these measures have 

led to the visibility improvement 

indicated by monitored data contained 

in West Virginia’s progress report SIP 

revision submittal. While West Virginia 

in its progress report did identify 

several factors not in the West Virginia 

regional haze SIP such as shutdowns 

and fuel switches that have reduced 

emissions from sources within the State, 

West Virginia did not rely on these to 

demonstrate that the implementation 

plan for the State is sufficient for 

purposes of this review. West Virginia 

included a discussion of these factors in 

the progress report to make clear that 

additional factors beyond the measures 

in the SIP and federal implementation 

plan (FIP) have contributed to the large 

emissions reductions seen throughout 

the state, particularly in SO2 emissions 

which have been identified as the 

primary contributor to visibility 

impairment in West Virginia and in the 

Visibility Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

region. West Virginia did not account 

for these factors in its original regional 

haze SIP as the shutdowns and fuel 

switches occurred after the development 

of the regional haze SIP and in many 

cases are not enforceable, as noted by 

the commenter. However, for this 

progress report SIP revision and to 

address requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1)–(7), including 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(6) specifically, West Virginia 

only needed to show that it is on track 

to achieve its RPGs in 2018. According 

to the monitored visibility data 

presented in the State’s progress report 

SIP submittal, West Virginia is on the 

glidepath to meeting its RPGs by 2018, 

and the Class I areas impacted by West 

Virginia sources are also on track to 

meet their RPGs by 2018. In addition, as 

discussed in the West Virginia progress 

report SIP submittal, many of the 

Federal and state measures in West 

Virginia’s regional haze SIP are just 

beginning to be implemented and as 

such further emission reductions, 

particularly in SO2 emissions, can be 

expected which will enable West 

Virginia to continue to make further 

progress towards its RPGs for 2018.5

Therefore, EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertion that more 

emissions reduction measures 

particularly from non-EGUs are needed 

for West Virginia’s regional haze SIP for 

Dolly Sods and Otter Creek (or other 

Class I areas impacted by West Virginia 

emissions) to meet RPGs. 

Comment 4: The Commenter stated 

that EPA cannot approve West 

Virginia’s progress report as it relies on 

CAIR. The Commenter stated CAIR was 

‘‘struck down’’ by the D.C. Circuit as 

fundamentally flawed. The Commenter 

also generally challenged the legality of 

using CAIR to meet any regional haze 

requirements. The Commenter 

‘‘reiterated’’ its prior comments that 

CAIR is ill-suited to address regional 

haze and that EPA cannot use a ‘‘capand-trade’’ program with yearly 

averaging to address sources with 

hourly effects on Class I areas. The 

Commenter stated the lack of sourcespecific BART is an impediment to the 

implementation of the regional haze 

program. In addition, the Commenter 

stated that EPA had previously issued a 

limited disapproval of West Virginia’s 

regional haze SIP due to reliance on 

CAIR. The Commenter stated EPA had 

also previously said in a rulemaking on 

Florida’s regional haze SIP that the five 

year progress report would be the 

appropriate time to address any 

necessary changes to reasonable 

progress goal demonstrations and long 

term strategies. The Commenter 

mentioned both West Virginia’s regional 

haze SIP and progress report SIP rely 

heavily on CAIR for modeling 

assumptions, controls, emission 

estimates, and as an alternative to 

source-specific BART requirements for 

EGUs. The Commenter mentioned EPA 

only addressed CAIR in the proposed 

approval of the progress report when 

discussing the limited disapproval of 

West Virginia’s regional haze SIP and 

stated EPA’s approval of the West 

Virginia progress report was 

inconsistent with prior EPA positions, 

unsupported by the facts and arbitrary 

and capricious as a matter of law. 

Response 4: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter that EPA cannot approve 

West Virginia’s five year progress report 

because the progress report relies on 

emission reductions from CAIR or 

because portions of West Virginia’s 

regional haze SIP relied on CAIR.6 On 

March 23, 2012 (77 FR 16937), EPA 

finalized a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of West Virginia’s June 18, 

2008 regional haze SIP to address the 

first implementation period for regional 

haze.7 There was a limited disapproval 

of this SIP because of West Virginia’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements.8 In our 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

32024 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

9EPA discussed in the NPR the significance of 

reductions in SO2 as West Virginia and VISTAS 

identified SO2 as the largest contributor pollutant 

to visibility impairment in West Virginia 

specifically and in the VISTAS region generally. 

SNPR, EPA described the litigation 

history and status of CAIR in great 

detail, including the fact that CAIR was 

replaced with CSAPR (76 FR 48208 

(August 8, 2011)) after West Virginia 

had developed and submitted its 

regional haze SIP. 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. On January 1, 

2015, EPA sunset CAIR and began 

implementing CSAPR after the D.C. 

Circuit lifted the stay on CSAPR 

following the Supreme Court’s decision 

upholding CSAPR. 

As explained in detail in the SNPR 

and here in summary fashion, EPA does 

not believe that the status of CAIR or 

CSAPR affects the approvability of West 

Virginia’s progress report SIP for several 

reasons. First, CAIR was in effect for the 

period of time addressed by West 

Virginia’s progress report (2008–2013). 

Therefore, West Virginia appropriately 

evaluated and relied on CAIR 

reductions from EGUs of significant 

emissions of NOX and SO2 to 

demonstrate the State’s progress 

towards meeting its RPGs.9 EPA’s 

intention in requiring the progress 

reports pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

was for the states to demonstrate 

progress achieved during the current 

implementation period addressed by the 

regional haze SIP. Thus, West Virginia 

appropriately relied upon CAIR 

reductions for demonstrating progress 

towards its RPGs from 2008–2013. And 

as explained in the SNPR, given that 

CAIR was in place until recently, it is 

appropriate to rely on CAIR emission 

reductions during this period for 

purposes of assessing the adequacy of 

West Virginia’s progress report pursuant 

to 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). 

Second, the State’s regional haze 

program now includes reliance on 

CSAPR for SO2 and NOX reductions, at 

least throughout the remainder of this 

first implementation period until 2018. 

EPA’s June 7, 2012 FIP replaced West 

Virginia’s reliance on CAIR with 

reliance on CSAPR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. Because the 

Regional Haze Rule discusses 

requirements for ‘‘implementation 

plans’’ which are defined in the 

visibility program to include approved 

SIPs or FIPs, EPA considered measures 

in its June 7, 2012 regional haze FIP as 

well as in the State’s regional haze SIP 

in assessing the State’s progress report 

for 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). EPA 

explained in the SNPR that the 

requirements of the regional haze 

program are fully addressed in West 

Virginia through its SIP and the FIP 

issued by EPA. As also discussed in the 

SNPR, EPA expects the SO2 and NOX

emissions reductions at EGUs in West 

Virginia to continue through the 

remainder of the first implementation 

period in 2018 due to implementation of 

CSAPR. 

Finally, the Regional Haze Rule 

provides for continual evaluation and 

assessment of a state’s reasonable 

progress towards achieving the national 

goal of natural visibility conditions. 

West Virginia has the opportunity to 

reassess its RPGs and the adequacy of its 

regional haze SIP, including reliance 

upon 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 or when the State 

prepares its next periodic progress 

report. However, as evaluated for this 

progress report, emissions of SO2 from 

EGUs are presently far below original 

projections for 2018, visibility data 

provided by West Virginia show the 

Federal Class I areas impacted by West 

Virginia sources are all on track to 

achieve their RPGs, and EPA expects 

SO2 emission reductions in West 

Virginia to continue through CSAPR 

and MATS and through expected EGU 

deactivations scheduled for 2015. These 

continued emission reductions will 

assist West Virginia in making 

reasonable progress towards natural 

visibility conditions in 2064. As further 

measures will be needed to make 

continued progress towards the national 

goal, West Virginia has the opportunity 

to include such measures in subsequent 

SIPs for future implementation periods. 

See Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., v. 

EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 

1997) (citing Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 

1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995)) (discussing that 

states have primary responsibility for 

determining an emission reductions 

program for its areas subject to EPA 

approval). 

Thus, neither the status of CAIR 

(which has now sunset) nor CSAPR 

(which is being implemented) impacts 

our decision to approve West Virginia’s 

progress report SIP. This SIP includes 

an adequate discussion of the 

implementation of regional haze SIP 

measures—including CAIR—and of the 

significant emission reductions 

achieved. 

In addition, EPA disagrees with 

Commenter that EPA’s approval of West 

Virginia’s progress report which relies 

on CAIR reductions is inconsistent with 

EPA’s prior actions. In fact, 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); 78 FR 59841 

(September 30, 2013); and 78 FR 56168 

(September 12, 2013). 

Because EPA expects SO2 and NOX

emissions from EGUs to continue 

through CSAPR and other measures and 

because future West Virginia regional 

haze SIP submissions due pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.308(f) and (g) will continue 

to evaluate West Virginia’s progress 

towards natural conditions, EPA 

believes it is appropriate to approve 

fully West Virginia’s progress report as 

meeting requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1)–(7) and (h) at this time. 

Thus, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter that EPA’s approval of the 

West Virginia progress report is 

inconsistent with EPA’s prior position, 

unsupported by the facts, or arbitrary 

and capricious as a matter of law. 

Further, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s ‘‘reiterated’’ statements 

concerning the validity of using an 

emissions trading program, such as 

CAIR or CSAPR, to meet regional haze 

requirements such as BART. As EPA’s 

2012 review of the West Virginia 

regional haze SIP explains, the State 

relied on CAIR to achieve significant 

reductions in emissions to meet both the 

BART requirements and to address 

impacts from West Virginia sources in 

Class I areas. 77 FR 16932. West 

Virginia’s reliance upon CAIR as an 

alternative to source-specific BART at 

the time of the submittal of West 

Virginia’s regional haze SIP in 2008 to 

EPA was supported by precedent from 

the D.C. Circuit as well as EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e). CAIR 

was specifically upheld as an alternative 

to BART in accordance with the 

requirements of section 169A of the 

CAA by the D.C. Circuit in Utility Air 

Regulatory Group v. EPA. 471 F.3d 1333 

(D.C. Cir. 2006). The D.C. Circuit 

concluded that the EPA’s two-pronged 

test for determining whether an 

alternative program achieves greater 

reasonable progress was a reasonable 

one and also agreed with EPA that 

nothing in the CAA required the EPA to 

‘‘impose a separate technology mandate 

for sources whose emissions affect Class 

I areas, rather than piggy-backing on 

solutions devised under other statutory 

categories, where such solutions meet 

the statutory requirements.’’ Id. at 1340. 

See also Center for Energy and 

Economic Development v. EPA, 398 

F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (finding 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 32025 

10 In a separate action, EPA found CSAPR is 

‘‘Better than BART.’’ See 76 FR 82219 (December 

30, 2011) (proposal of CSAPR as ‘‘Better than 

BART’’) and 77 FR 33641 (June 7, 2012) (addressing 

comments concerning CSAPR as a BART alternative 

in the final action). EPA’s responses to these 

comments can be found in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0729 at www.regulations.gov. 

reasonable EPA’s interpretation of 

section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA as 

requiring BART only as necessary to 

make reasonable progress). Thus, EPA 

disagrees with the Commenter that EPA 

cannot use cap-and-trade programs to 

address effects of sources in Class I 

areas and disagrees that the use of 

alternatives to source-specific BART is 

an impediment to states achieving 

reasonable progress as required by 

section 169A of the CAA. 

EPA also notes in general that the 

comments regarding CAIR as adequate 

for regional haze requirements are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking 

action. In this rulemaking action, EPA is 

finalizing approval of West Virginia’s 

progress report SIP and did not propose 

to find that participation in CSAPR or 

CAIR is an alternative to BART in this 

rulemaking action. Moreover, EPA did 

not reopen discussions on the CAIR or 

CSAPR provisions as they relate to 

BART in assessing the progress report.10

Finally, EPA also generally disagrees 

with the Commenter that EPA did not 

discuss CAIR in EPA’s NPR. EPA 

discussed CAIR, as well as emission 

reductions from CAIR, when assessing 

West Virginia’s five year progress report 

as meeting requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1) and (2). CAIR, as an EGU 

control strategy, was one measure from 

West Virginia’s regional haze SIP 

discussed in EPA’s analysis of 

implementation of SIP measures for 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(1), and emission 

reductions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs 

generally resulting from implementation 

of CAIR are discussed in EPA’s analysis 

of West Virginia’s progress report for 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(2). See 79 FR at 11462– 

11463. In addition, in EPA’s SNPR, EPA 

discussed the litigation history and 

status of CAIR and CSAPR and the 

effects of those programs on West 

Virginia’s regional haze SIP in detail 

and provided an opportunity for 

comment on these issues. 80 FR at 

12609–12611. 

In summary, EPA does not view West 

Virginia’s reliance through December 

2014 upon CAIR for BART or for any 

other part of the regional haze SIP as a 

reason to disapprove the West Virginia 

progress report. 

Comment 5: The Commenter 

expressed support for the maintenance 

of the IMPROVE visibility monitoring 

network. The Commenter stated it 

would like funding to continue for this 

monitoring network and would like EPA 

to advocate for funding of this network. 

The Commenter also stated its support 

for continuing funding for VISTAS’ 

work for additional ‘‘understanding of 

source contributions to PM2.5 mass and 

visibility impairment or continued 

operation of VISTAS Web site.’’ 

Response 5: EPA thanks the 

Commenter for expressing its support 

for the IMPROVE monitoring network 

and for the work by VISTAS. In its 

progress report SIP, West Virginia 

summarized the existing visibility 

monitoring network at Dolly Sods and 

Otter Creek and discussed the State’s 

intended continued reliance on the 

IMPROVE monitoring network for its 

visibility planning. West Virginia 

concluded that the existing network is 

adequate and that no modifications to 

visibility monitoring strategy were 

necessary. In EPA’s NPR, EPA 

concluded that West Virginia 

adequately addressed the sufficiency of 

its monitoring strategy as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(7), and EPA accordingly 

proposed approval of the West Virginia 

progress report. Additional funding 

concerns for VISTAS as raised by the 

Commenter are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Comment 6: The SNPR Commenter 

stated that EPA’s reasons to approve the 

progress report are sound and stated it 

supported approval of the progress 

report SIP. The SNPR Commenter stated 

that CAIR was in the West Virginia SIP 

and in effect and enforceable throughout 

the period relevant to West Virginia’s 

assessment of progress. The SNPR 

Commenter also agreed with EPA that 

EPA may consider a FIP as well as a SIP 

in evaluating a regional haze program 

under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h). 

Finally, the SNPR Commenter stated 

EPA had a sound basis to approve the 

West Virginia progress report SIP based 

on the status of CAIR and CSAPR and 

stated reliance on CSAPR for further 

progress toward applicable RPGs in 

West Virginia and other affected states 

was appropriate as CSAPR has taken 

effect. The SNPR Commenter noted, 

however, that EPA had no valid basis 

for its limited disapproval of West 

Virginia’s regional haze SIP based on 

West Virginia’s reliance upon CAIR as a 

BART alternative. 

Response 6: EPA appreciates the 

supportive comments from the SNPR 

Commenter and its agreement with 

EPA’s analysis in the NPR and SNPR. 

The SNPR Commenter’s statement 

regarding EPA’s prior limited approval 

of West Virginia’s regional haze SIP is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking and 

therefore no further response is 

provided. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving West Virginia’s 

regional haze five-year progress report 

SIP revision, submitted on April 30, 

2013, as meeting the applicable regional 

haze requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(g) and 51.308(h). 

V. 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. 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

32026 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 August 4, 2015. 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 to approve West Virginia’s 

regional haze five-year progress report 

SIP revision 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, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 26, 2015. 

William 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. 

Subpart XX—West Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

Regional Haze Five-Year Progress 

Report at the end of the table to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Additional 

explanation 

*******

Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report .......... Statewide .... 4/30/13 6/5/15 [Insert Federal Register Citation].

[FR Doc. 2015–13801 Filed 6–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0228; FRL–9928–07– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Eastern Kern Air 

Pollution Control District, Mojave 

Desert Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control 

District (EKAPCD) and Mojave Desert 

Air Quality Management District 

(MDAQMD) portions of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

polyester resin operations and oil-water 

separators. The EPA is approving local 

rules that regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). 

DATES: These rules are effective on 

August 4, 2015 without further notice, 

unless the EPA receives adverse 

comments by July 6, 2015. If we receive 

such comments, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register to notify the public that this 

direct final rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0228 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and the EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to the EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the 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: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES