41158 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Bufano, Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition (HFS–316), Food 

and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint 

Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 

240–402–1493. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In the Federal Register of July 9, 2009 

(74 FR 33030), FDA issued a final rule 

requiring shell egg producers to 

implement measures to prevent 

Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) from 

contaminating eggs on the farm and 

from further growth during storage and 

transportation, and requiring these 

producers to maintain records 

concerning their compliance with the 

final rule and to register with FDA. This 

final rule became effective September 8, 

2009, with a compliance date of July 9, 

2010, for producers with 50,000 or more 

laying hens. For producers with fewer 

than 50,000, but at least 3,000 laying 

hens, the compliance date is July 9, 

2012. The compliance date for persons 

who must comply with only the 

refrigeration requirements was July 9, 

2010. 

This level 1 draft guidance is being 

issued consistent with FDA’s good 

guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 

10.115). The draft guidance, when 

finalized, will represent the Agency’s 

current thinking on how to interpret the 

requirements in the final rule, including 

questions and answers on compliance 

dates; coverage; definitions; SE 

prevention measures; sampling and 

testing for SE; registration; and 

compliance and enforcement. It does 

not create or confer any rights for or on 

any person and does not operate to bind 

FDA or the public. An alternate 

approach may be used if such approach 

satisfies the requirements of the 

applicable statutes and regulations. 

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This draft guidance refers to 

previously approved collections of 

information found in FDA regulations. 

These collections of information are 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections 

of information in 21 CFR 118.5, 118.6, 

118.10, and 118.11 have been approved 

under OMB control number 0910–0660. 

III. Comments 

Interested persons may submit to the 

Division of Dockets Management (see 

ADDRESSES) either electronic or written 

comments regarding this document. It is 

only necessary to send one set of 

comments. It is no longer necessary to 

send two copies of mailed comments. 

Identify comments with the docket 

number found in brackets in the 

heading of this document. Received 

comments may be seen in the Division 

of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. 

IV. Electronic Access 

Persons with access to the Internet 

may obtain the draft guidance at 

http://www.fda.gov/ 

RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ 

default.htm or http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Dated: July 7, 2011. 

Leslie Kux, 

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17457 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0092; FRL–9437–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and a limited disapproval of a 

revision to the West Virginia State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of West Virginia through the 

West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection (WVDEP) on 

June 18, 2008, that addresses regional 

haze for the first implementation period. 

This revision addresses the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and EPA’s rules that require states to 

prevent any future, and remedy any 

existing, anthropogenic impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of this SIP revision to 

implement the regional haze 

requirements for West Virginia on the 

basis that the revision, as a whole, 

strengthens the West Virginia SIP. Also 

in this action, EPA is proposing a 

limited disapproval of this same SIP 

revision because of the deficiencies in 

the State’s June 2008 regional haze SIP 

submittal arising from the remand by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). EPA is 

also proposing to approve this revision 

as meeting the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), 

relating to visibility protection for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 

1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0092 by one of the 

following methods 

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0092, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2011– 

0092. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov website is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41159 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 

57th Street SE., Charleston, West 

Virginia 25304. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Linden, (215) 814–2096, or by 

e-mail at linden.melissa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

18, 2008, the WVDEP submitted a 

revision to its SIP for Regional Haze. 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

III. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

IV. What is the relationship of the CAIR to 

the regional haze requirements? 

A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR 

B. Remand of the CAIR 

C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially 

Affected by the CAIR Remand 

D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed 

Limited Approval 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of West Virginia’s 

regional haze submittal? 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling to Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources to 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in West Virginia and 

Surrounding Areas 

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in 

the Reasonable Progress Analysis 

6. BART 

7. RPGs 

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

F. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

VI. What action is EPA proposing? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

I. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of West Virginia’s June 18, 2008 SIP 

revision addressing regional haze 

because the revision as a whole 

strengthens the West Virginia SIP. EPA 

is also proposing to find that this 

revision meets the applicable visibility 

related requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2) including, but not limited to 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), 

relating to visibility protection for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, 

the West Virginia SIP relies on CAIR, an 

EPA rule, to satisfy key elements of the 

regional haze requirements. Due to the 

remand of CAIR, see North Carolina v. 

EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Circuit 2008), 

the revision does not meet all of the 

applicable requirements of the CAA and 

EPA’s regulations as set forth in sections 

169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 

CFR 51.300–308. As a result, EPA is 

concurrently proposing a limited 

disapproval of West Virginia’s SIP 

revision. The revision nevertheless 

represents an improvement over the 

current SIP, and makes considerable 

progress in fulfilling the applicable CAA 

regional haze program requirements. 

This proposed rulemaking explains the 

basis for EPA’s proposed limited 

approval and limited disapproval 

actions. 

Under the CAA, sections 301(a) and 

110(k)(6), and EPA’s long-standing 

guidance, a limited approval results in 

approval of the entire SIP submittal, 

even of those parts that are deficient and 

prevent EPA from granting a full 

approval of the SIP revision. Processing 

of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, OAQPS, to Air 

Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices 

I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum) located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/ 

siproc.pdf. The deficiencies that EPA 

has identified as preventing a full 

approval of this SIP revision relate to 

the status and impact of CAIR on certain 

interrelated and required elements of 

the regional haze program. At the time 

the West Virginia regional haze SIP was 

being developed, the State’s reliance on 

CAIR was fully consistent with EPA’s 

regulations, see (70 FR 39104, 39142– 

4143, July 6, 2005). CAIR, as originally 

promulgated, requires significant 

reductions in emissions of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

to limit the interstate transport of these 

pollutants, and the reliance on CAIR by 

affected states as an alternative to 

requiring BART for electrical generating 

units (EGUs) had specifically been 

upheld in Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (DC Circuit 2006). 

In 2008, however, the DC Circuit 

remanded CAIR back to EPA. See North 

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

court found CAIR to be inconsistent 

with the requirements of the CAA, see 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(DC Circuit 2008), but ultimately 

remanded the rule to EPA without 

vacatur because it found that ‘‘allowing 

CAIR to remain in effect until it is 

replaced by a rule consistent with [the 

court’s] opinion would at least 

temporarily preserve the environmental 

values covered by CAIR.’’ See North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. In 

response to the court’s decision, EPA 

has proposed a new rule to address 

interstate transport of NOX and SOX in 

the eastern United States. (75 FR 45210, 

Aug. 2, 2010) (‘‘the Transport Rule’’). 

EPA explained in that proposal that the 

Transport Rule, when finalized, will 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41160 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

2Areas 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.’’ 

3Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

replace CAIR and the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs). In other 

words, the CAIR and CAIR FIP 

requirements, which were found to be 

illegal by the DC Circuit, will not 

remain in force after the Transport Rule 

requirements are in place. Given the 

status of CAIR, EPA is proposing to find 

that West Virginia may not rely on CAIR 

in its present form to provide reductions 

to satisfy the reasonable progress and 

BART requirements of the regional haze 

program. 

While CAIR will not remain in effect 

indefinitely, it is currently in force. See 

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

By granting limited approval of West 

Virginia’s regional haze SIP, EPA will 

allow the State to rely on the emissions 

reductions associated with CAIR for so 

long as CAIR is in place. We believe that 

this course of action is consistent with 

the court’s intention to keep CAIR in 

place in order to ‘‘temporarily preserve 

the environmental values covered by 

CAIR.’’ Id, at 1178. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic 

carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 

and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, 

and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC)). 

Fine particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter that impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity, color, 

and visible distance that one can see. 

PM2.5 can also cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans and 

contributes to environmental effects 

such as acid deposition and 

eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range 1 in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. (64 FR 35715, July 1, 

1999). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 2 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment.’’ See 45 FR 80084. These 

regulations represented the first phase 

in addressing visibility impairment. 

EPA deferred action on regional haze 

that emanates from a variety of sources 

until monitoring, modeling and 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between pollutants and 

visibility impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section III of this preamble. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.3 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and various 

Federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Visibility Improvement State and 

Tribal Association of the Southeast 

(VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of 

state governments, tribal governments, 

and various Federal Agencies 

established to initiate and coordinate 

activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility 

and other air quality issues in the 

Southeastern United States. Member 

state and tribal governments include: 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41161 

4The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. (64 FR 35714–35725, 

July 1, 1999). 

Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the 

Cherokee Indians. 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 

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

that within three years of promulgation 

of a NAAQS, a State must ensure that 

its SIP, among other requirements, 

‘‘contains adequate provisions 

prohibiting any source or other types of 

emission activity within the State from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will interfere with measures 

required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other State to protect visibility.’’ 

Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires 

that such SIP ‘‘meet the applicable 

requirements of part C of (Subchapter I) 

(relating to visibility protection).’’ 

EPA’s 2006 Guidance, entitled 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ recognized the possibility 

that a state could potentially meet the 

visibility portions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission 

of a Regional Haze SIP, as required by 

sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. 

EPA’s 2009 guidance, entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS),’’ recommended that a state 

could meet such visibility requirements 

through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA’s 

rationale supporting this 

recommendation was that the 

development of the regional haze SIPs 

was intended to occur in a collaborative 

environment among the states, and that 

through this process states would 

coordinate on emissions controls to 

protect visibility on an interstate basis. 

The common understanding was that, as 

a result of this collaborative 

environment, each state would take 

action to achieve the emissions 

reductions relied upon by other states in 

their reasonable progress 

demonstrations under the Regional Haze 

Rule. This interpretation is consistent 

with the requirement in the Regional 

Haze Rule that a state participating in a 

regional planning process must include 

‘‘all measures needed to achieve its 

apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations agreed upon through that 

process.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

The regional haze program, as 

reflected in the Regional Haze Rule, 

recognizes the importance of addressing 

the long-range transport of pollutants for 

visibility and encourages states to work 

together to develop plans to address 

haze. The regulations explicitly require 

each state to address its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goals for 

neighboring Class I areas. States 

working together through a regional 

planning process, are required to 

address an agreed upon share of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these 

requirements, appropriate regional haze 

SIPs will contain measures that will 

achieve these emissions reductions and 

will meet the applicable visibility 

related requirements of section 

110(a)(2). 

As a result of the regional planning 

efforts in the VISTAS, all states in the 

VISTAS region contributed information 

used in the analysis of the causes of 

haze, and the levels of contribution from 

all sources within each state to the 

visibility degradation of each Class I 

area. The VISTAS States consulted in 

the development of reasonable progress 

goals. The modeling done by VISTAS 

relied on assumptions regarding 

emissions over the relevant planning 

period and embedded in these 

assumptions were anticipated emissions 

reductions in each of the states in 

VISTAS, including reductions from 

BART and other measures to be adopted 

as part of the State’s long term strategy 

for addressing regional haze. The 

reasonable progress goals in the regional 

haze SIPs that have been prepared by 

the states in the VISTAS region are 

based, in part, on the emissions 

reductions from nearby states that were 

agreed on through the VISTAS process. 

West Virginia submitted a Regional 

Haze SIP on June 18, 2008, to address 

the requirements of the Regional Haze 

Rule. On December 3, 2007, West 

Virginia submitted its original 1997 

Ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On 

April 3, 2008, West Virginia submitted 

a 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. 

On May 21, 2008, West Virginia 

submitted amendments to the 1997 

Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure 

submittal. On October 1, 2009, West 

Virginia submitted a 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP. In the October 1, 

2009 submittal, West Virginia indicated 

that its Regional Haze SIP would meet 

the requirements of the CAA, section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), regarding visibility for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. West 

Virginia also indicated it will meet the 

visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(J), 

and specifically references the Regional 

Haze SIP submitted in June. EPA has 

reviewed West Virginia’s Regional Haze 

SIP and, as explained in section VI of 

this action, proposes to find that West 

Virginia’s Regional Haze submittal 

meets the portions of the requirements 

of the CAA sections 110(a)(2) relating to 

visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview as 

the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility 

expressed in deciviews is determined by 

using air quality measurements to 

estimate light extinction and then 

transforming the value of light 

extinction using a logarithm function. 

The deciview is a more useful measure 

for tracking progress in improving 

visibility than light extinction itself 

because each deciview change is an 

equal incremental change in visibility 

perceived by the human eye. Most 

people can detect a change in visibility 

at one deciview.4

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs (which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41162 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most 

impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over 

a specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. In addition, states must 

also develop an estimate of natural 

visibility conditions for the purpose of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. EPA has provided guidance 

to states regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural and current visibility 

conditions in documents titled, EPA’s 

Guidance for Estimating Natural 

Visibility conditions under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–005 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance’’) and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–004 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two 

distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and 

one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class 

I area for each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

of progress, but instead calls for states 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 

2007, memorandum from William L. 

Wehrum, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA 

Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting 

the RPGs, states must also consider the 

rate of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the 

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. Uniform progress towards 

achievement of natural conditions by 

the year 2064 represents a rate of 

progress which states are to use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each state with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emission sources that may be 

affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

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

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 5 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

determination for a fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating plant with a total 

generating capacity in excess of 750 

megawatts, a state must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41163 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Any exemption threshold set 

by the state should not be higher than 

0.5 deciview. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR and 

document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

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

states consider the following factors: (1) 

The costs of compliance, (2) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 

pollution control technology in use at 

the source, (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP. See CAA section 

169(g)(4); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 

addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. 

As noted above, the RHR allows states 

to implement an alternative program in 

lieu of BART so long as the alternative 

program can be demonstrated to achieve 

greater reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal than would 

BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 

revising the regional haze program, EPA 

made just such a demonstration for 

CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). 

EPA’s regulations provide that states 

participating in the CAIR cap-and trade 

program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant 

to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which 

remain subject to the CAIR FIP in 40 

CFR part 97 need not require affected 

BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, 

and maintain BART for emissions of 

SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

Since CAIR is not applicable to 

emissions of PM, states were still 

required to conduct a BART analysis for 

PM emissions from EGUs subject to 

BART for that pollutant. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The 

LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals’’ for all Class I areas 

within, or affected by emissions from, 

the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, 

the contributing state must demonstrate 

that it has included, in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between states may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal Areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network, (i.e., review and use of 

monitoring data from the network). The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41164 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

IV. What is the relationship of the CAIR 

to the regional haze requirements? 

A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR 

CAIR, as originally promulgated, 

requires 28 states and the District of 

Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2

and NOX that significantly contribute to, 

or interfere with maintenance of, the 

NAAQS for fine particulates and/or 

ozone in any downwind state. See 70 FR 

25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR establishes 

emission budgets or caps for SO2 and 

NOX for states that contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in 

downwind states and requires the 

significantly contributing states to 

submit SIP revisions that implement 

these budgets. States have the flexibility 

to choose which control measures to 

adopt to achieve the budgets, including 

participation in EPA-administered capand-trade programs addressing SO2,

NOX-annual, and NOX-ozone season 

emissions. 

B. Remand of the CAIR 

On July 11, 2008, the DC Circuit 

issued its decision to vacate and remand 

both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs 

in their entirety. See North Carolina v. 

EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Circuit 2008). 

However, in response to EPA’s petition 

for rehearing, the court issued an order 

remanding CAIR to EPA without 

vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. 

The court thereby left the EPA CAIR 

rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in place in 

order to ‘‘temporarily preserve the 

environmental values covered by CAIR’’ 

until EPA replaces it with a rule 

consistent with the court’s opinion. See 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 

1178. The court directed EPA to 

‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ consistent with 

its July 11, 2008, opinion, but declined 

to impose a schedule on EPA for 

completing that action. Because CAIR 

accordingly has been remanded to the 

Agency without vacatur, CAIR and the 

CAIR FIPs are currently in effect in 

subject states. 

C. Regional Haze SIP Elements 

Potentially Affected by the CAIR 

Remand 

The following is a summary of the 

elements of the regional haze SIPs that 

are potentially affected by the remand of 

CAIR. Many states relied on CAIR as an 

alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX for 

subject EGUs, as allowed under the 

BART provisions at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

Additionally, several states established 

RPGs that reflect the improvement in 

visibility expected to result from 

controls planned for or already installed 

on sources within the state to meet the 

CAIR provisions for this 

implementation period for specified 

pollutants. Many states relied upon 

their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs 

for their states to provide the legal 

requirements which leads to these 

planned controls, and did not include 

enforceable measures in the LTS in the 

regional haze SIP submission to ensure 

these reductions. States also submitted 

demonstrations showing that no 

additional controls on EGUs beyond 

CAIR would be reasonable for this 

implementation period. Due to EPA’s 

need to address the concerns of the 

court as outlined in its decision 

remanding CAIR, EPA believes it would 

be inappropriate to fully approve states’ 

LTSs that rely upon the emissions 

reductions predicted to result from 

CAIR to meet the BART requirement for 

EGUs or to meet the RPGs in the states’ 

regional haze SIPs. For this reason, EPA 

cannot fully approve regional haze SIP 

revisions that rely on CAIR for emission 

reduction measures. EPA therefore 

proposes to grant limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the West Virginia 

SIP. The next section discusses how the 

Agency proposes to address these 

deficiencies. 

D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed 

Limited Approval 

EPA is intending to propose to issue 

limited approvals of those regional haze 

SIP revisions that rely on CAIR to 

address the impact of emissions from a 

state’s own EGUs. Limited approval 

results in approval of the entire regional 

haze submission and all its elements. 

EPA is taking this approach because an 

affected state’s SIP will be stronger and 

more protective of the environment with 

the implementation of those measures 

by the state and having Federal approval 

and enforceability than it would 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41165 

6The IMPROVE program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal agencies (including representatives from 

EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE 

monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid 

the creation of Federal and State implementation 

plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. 

One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify 

chemical species and emission sources responsible 

for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. 

The IMPROVE program has also been a key 

participant in visibility-related research, including 

the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 

7The science behind the revised IMPROVE 

equation is summarized in Appendix B.2 of the 

West Virginia Regional Haze submittal and in 

numerous published papers. See for example: 

Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the 

IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light 

Extinction Coefficients—Final Report. March 2006. 

Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State 

University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the 

Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. http:// 

vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/ 

GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/ 

IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 

2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the 

New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species 

Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 

Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO 

Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 

2006 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ 

Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

without those measures being included 

in the state’s SIP. 

EPA also intends to propose to issue 

limited disapprovals for regional haze 

SIP revisions that rely on CAIR 

concurrently with the proposals for 

limited approval. As explained in the 

1992 Calcagni Memorandum, ‘‘[t]hrough 

a limited approval, EPA [will] 

concurrently, or within a reasonable 

period of time thereafter, disapprove the 

rule * * * for not meeting all of the 

applicable requirements of the CAA 

* * * [T]he limited disapproval is a 

rulemaking action, and it is subject to 

notice and comment.’’ Final limited 

disapproval of a SIP submittal does not 

affect the Federal enforceability of the 

measures in the subject SIP revision nor 

prevent state implementation of these 

measures. The legal effects of the final 

limited disapproval are to provide EPA 

the authority to issue a FIP at any time, 

and to obligate the Agency to take such 

action no more than two years after the 

effective date of the final limited 

disapproval action. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of West 

Virginia’s regional haze submittal? 

On June 18, 2008, WVDEP submitted 

revisions to the West Virginia SIP to 

address regional haze in the State’s 

Class I areas as required by EPA’s RHR. 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

West Virginia has two Class I areas 

within its borders: Dolly Sods 

Wilderness Area and Otter Creek 

Wilderness Area. West Virginia 

determined the appropriate RPGs, 

including consulting with other states 

that impact these two Class I areas. West 

Virginia is responsible for describing its 

own long-term emission strategies, its 

role in the consultation processes, and 

how its particular state SIP meets the 

other requirements in EPA’s regional 

haze regulations. 

The West Virginia regional haze SIP 

establishes RPGs for visibility 

improvement at each of these Class I 

areas and a LTS to achieve those RPGs 

within the first regional haze 

implementation period ending in 2018. 

In developing the LTS for each area, 

West Virginia considered both emission 

sources inside and outside the state that 

may cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in West Virginia’s Class I 

areas. The State also identified and 

considered emission sources within 

West Virginia that may cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas in neighboring states as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The 

VISTAS RPO worked with the State in 

developing the technical analyses used 

to make these determinations, including 

state-by-state contributions to visibility 

impairment in specific Class I areas, 

which included the two areas in West 

Virginia and those areas affected by 

emissions from West Virginia. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

As required by the RHR and in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, West Virginia 

calculated baseline/current and natural 

visibility conditions for each of its Class 

I areas, as summarized below. 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Natural background visibility, as 

defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance, is estimated by calculating 

the expected light extinction using 

default estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components adjusted by site-specific 

estimates of humidity. This calculation 

uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a 

formula for estimating light extinction 

from the estimated natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components (or from components 

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). 

As documented in EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states 

to use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative 

approaches to 2003 EPA guidance to 

estimate the values that characterize the 

natural visibility conditions of the Class 

I areas. One alternative approach is to 

develop and justify the use of 

alternative estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components. Another alternative is to 

use the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that 

was adopted for use by the IMPROVE 

Steering Committee in December 2005.6

The purpose of this refinement to the 

‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to provide 

more accurate estimates of the various 

factors that affect the calculation of light 

extinction. West Virginia opted to use 

the default estimates for the natural 

concentrations combined with the ‘‘new 

IMPROVE equation,’’ for all of its areas. 

Using this approach, natural visibility 

conditions using the new IMPROVE 

equation were calculated separately for 

each Class I area by VISTAS. 

The new IMPROVE equation takes 

into account the most recent review of 

the science 7 and it accounts for the 

effect of particle size distribution on 

light extinction efficiency of sulfate, 

nitrate, and organic carbon. It also 

adjusts the mass multiplier for organic 

carbon (particulate organic matter) by 

increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms 

are added to the equation to account for 

light extinction by sea salt and light 

absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. 

Site-specific values are used for 

Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light 

due to atmospheric gases) to account for 

the site-specific effects of elevation and 

temperature. Separate relative humidity 

enhancement factors are used for small 

and large size distributions of 

ammonium sulfate and ammonium 

nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 

remaining contributors, elemental 

carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 

soil, and coarse mass terms, do not 

change between the original and new 

IMPROVE equations. 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

The Otter Creek Wilderness Area does 

not contain an IMPROVE monitor. In 

cases where onsite monitoring is not 

available, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) 

requires states to use the most 

representative monitoring available for 

the 2000–2004 period to establish 

baseline visibility conditions, in 

consultation with EPA. West Virginia 

used and EPA concurs with the use of 

2000–2004 data from the IMPROVE 

monitor at Dolly Sods Wilderness Area 

for the Otter Creek Wilderness Area. 

The Dolly Sods Wilderness Area is 

nearest to the Otter Creek Wilderness 

Area and the areas possess similar 

characteristics, such as meteorology and 

topography. 

WVDEP estimated baseline visibility 

conditions at both West Virginia Class I 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41166 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

areas using available monitoring data 

from a single IMPROVE monitoring site 

in the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area. For 

the first regional haze SIP, baseline 

visibility conditions are the same as 

current conditions. A five-year average 

of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was 

calculated for each of the 20 percent 

worst and 20 percent best visibility days 

at each West Virginia Class I area. 

IMPROVE data records for Dolly Sods 

Wilderness Area for the period 2000 to 

2004 meet the EPA requirements for 

data completeness, see page 2–8 of 

EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance. 

This data is also provided at the 

following Web site: http://www.metro4- 

sesarm.org/vistas/ 

SesarmBext_20BW.htm. 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

For the West Virginia Class I areas, 

baseline visibility conditions on the 20 

percent worst days are approximately 30 

deciviews (dv). Natural visibility in 

these areas is predicted to be 

approximately 11 deciviews on the 20 

percent worst days. The natural and 

baseline conditions for West Virginia’s 

Class I areas for both the 20 percent 

worst and best days are presented in 

Table 1, below. 

TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR THE WEST VIRGINIA CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Average for 20% 

worst days 

(dv) 9

Average for 20% 

best days 

(dv) 

Natural Background Conditions 

Dolly Sods Wilderness Area .................................................................................................................... 10.4 3.6 

Otter Creek Wilderness Area .................................................................................................................. 10.4 3.6 

Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000–2004) 

Dolly Sods Wilderness Area .................................................................................................................... 29.0 12.3 

Otter Creek Wilderness Area .................................................................................................................. 29.0 12.3 

9EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled, ‘‘Technical Support Document for the Modeling Portions of the State of West Virginia’s Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan (SIP)’’ is included in the public docket for this action. 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

In setting the RPGs, West Virginia 

considered the uniform rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (‘‘glidepath’’) and 

the emission reduction measures 

needed to achieve that rate of progress 

over the period of the SIP to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in 

EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance 

document, the uniform rate of progress 

is not a presumptive target, and RPGs 

may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to 

the glidepath. 

The State’s implementation plan 

presents a graph for the 20 percent 

worst days, for its two Class I areas. 

West Virginia constructed the graph for 

the worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Tracking 

Progress Guidance by plotting a straight 

graphical line from the baseline level of 

visibility impairment for 2000–2004 to 

the level of visibility conditions 

representing no anthropogenic 

impairment in 2064 for its two areas. 

West Virginia’s SIP shows that the 

State’s RPGs for its areas provide for 

improvement in visibility for the 20 

percent worst days over the period of 

the implementation plan and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the 20 

percent best days over the same period, 

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). 

For the West Virginia Class I areas, 

the overall visibility improvement 

necessary to reach natural conditions is 

the difference between baseline 

visibility of 29.0 deciviews for the 20 

percent worst days and natural 

conditions of 10.4 deciviews, i.e., 18.6 

deciviews. Over the 60-year period from 

2004 to 2064, this would require an 

average improvement of 0.31 deciviews 

per year to reach natural conditions. 

Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 

to 2018, in order to achieve visibility 

improvements at least equivalent to the 

uniform rate of progress for the 20 

percent worst days at Dolly Sods 

Wilderness Area and the Otter Creek 

Wilderness Area, West Virginia would 

need to project at least 4.3 deciviews 

over the first implementation period 

(i.e., 0.31 deciviews × 14 years = 4.3 

deciviews) of visibility improvement 

from the 29.0 deciviews baseline in 

2004, resulting in visibility levels at or 

below 24.7 deciviews in 2018. West 

Virginia projects a 7.3 deciview 

improvement to visibility from the 29.0 

deciview baseline to 21.7 deciviews in 

2018 for the 20 percent most impaired 

days, and a 1.2 deciview improvement 

to 11.1 deciviews from the baseline 

visibility of 12.3 deciviews for the 20 

percent least impaired days. 

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

The LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by 

the state for achieving its RPGs. West 

Virginia’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from Federal, 

State, and Local controls that take effect 

in the State from the end of the baseline 

period starting in 2004 until 2018. The 

West Virginia LTS was developed by the 

State, in coordination with the VISTAS 

RPO, through an evaluation of the 

following components: (1) Identification 

of the emission units within West 

Virginia and in surrounding states that 

likely have the largest impacts currently 

on visibility at the State’s two Class I 

areas; (2) estimation of emissions 

reductions for 2018 based on all 

controls required or expected under 

Federal and State regulations for the 

2004–2018 period (including BART); 

(3) comparison of projected visibility 

improvement with the uniform rate of 

progress for the State’s Class I areas; and 

(4) application of the four statutory 

factors in the reasonable progress 

analysis for the identified emission 

units to determine if additional 

reasonable controls were required. 

CAIR is also an element of West 

Virginia’s LTS. CAIR rule revisions were 

approved into the West Virginia SIP in 

2007 and 2009. See 72 FR 71576 

(December 18, 2007 and 74 FR 38536 

(August 4, 2009). West Virginia opted to 

rely on CAIR emission reduction 

requirements to satisfy the BART 

requirements for SO2 and NOX from 

EGUs. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

Therefore, West Virginia only required 

its BART-eligible EGUs to evaluate PM 

emissions for determining whether they 

are subject to BART, and, if applicable, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41167 

8See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250. 

for performing a BART control 

assessment. Additionally, West Virginia 

concluded that no additional controls 

beyond CAIR are reasonable for 

reasonable progress for its EGUs for this 

first implementation period. Prior to the 

remand of CAIR, EPA believed the 

State’s reliance on CAIR for specific 

BART and reasonable progress 

provisions affecting its EGUs was 

adequate, as detailed later in this notice. 

As explained in section VI of this 

notice, the EPA proposes today to issue 

a limited approval and a proposed 

limited disapproval of the State’s 

regional haze SIP revision. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses was 

developed by VISTAS with assistance 

from West Virginia. The 2018 emissions 

inventory was developed by projecting 

2002 emissions and applying reductions 

expected from Federal and State 

regulations affecting the emissions of 

VOC and the visibility-impairing 

pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. The 

BART Guidelines direct states to 

exercise judgment in deciding whether 

VOC and NH3 impair visibility in their 

Class I area(s). VISTAS performed 

modeling sensitivity analyses, which 

demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of VOC and NH3 do not 

significantly impair visibility in the 

VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions 

inventories were also developed for NH3

and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC 

reductions were incorporated into West 

Virginia’s regional haze analyses, West 

Virginia did not further evaluate NH3

and VOC emissions sources for potential 

controls under BART or reasonable 

progress. 

VISTAS developed emissions for five 

inventory source classifications: 

Stationary point and area sources, offroad and on-road mobile sources, and 

biogenic sources. Stationary point 

sources are those sources that emit 

greater than a specified tonnage per 

year, depending on the pollutant, with 

data provided at the facility level. 

Stationary area sources are those 

sources whose individual emissions are 

relatively small, but due to the large 

number of these sources, the collective 

emissions from the source category 

could be significant. VISTAS estimated 

emissions on a countywide level for the 

inventory categories of: (a) Stationary 

area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) 

mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can 

move but does not use the roadways); 

and (c) biogenic sources (which are 

natural sources of emissions, such as 

trees). On-road mobile source emissions 

are estimated by vehicle type and road 

type, and are summed to the 

countywide level. 

There are many Federal and State 

control programs being implemented 

that VISTAS and West Virginia 

anticipate will reduce emissions 

between the end of the baseline period 

and 2018. Emission reductions from 

these control programs are projected to 

achieve substantial visibility 

improvement by 2018 in the West 

Virginia Class I areas. The control 

programs relied upon by West Virginia 

include CAIR; the NOX SIP Call; North 

Carolina’s Clean Smokestacks Act; 

Georgia multi-pollutant rule; consent 

agreements for Santee Cooper, Tampa 

Electric, Virginia Electric and Power 

Company, Gulf Power, East Kentucky 

Power Cooperative, Dupont, West Point 

Paper Mill, Alabama Power, American 

Electric Power; Federal 2007 heavy duty 

diesel (2007) engine standards for onroad trucks and busses; Federal Tier 2 

tailpipe controls for on-road vehicles; 

Federal large spark ignition and 

recreational vehicle controls; and EPA’s 

non-road diesel rules. 

Controls from various Federal 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) rules were also 

utilized in the development of the 2018 

emission inventory projections. These 

MACT rules include the industrial 

boiler/process heater MACT (referred to 

as ‘‘Industrial Boiler MACT’’), the 

combustion turbine and reciprocating 

internal combustion engines MACTs, 

and the VOC 2, 4, 7, and 10-year MACT 

standards. 

On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District 

Court of Appeals mandated the vacatur 

and remand of the Industrial Boiler 

MACT Rule.8 This MACT was vacated 

since it was directly affected by the 

vacatur and remand of the Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator 

(CISWI) Definition Rule. 

Notwithstanding the vacatur of this rule, 

the VISTAS states, including West 

Virginia, decided to leave these controls 

in the modeling for their regional haze 

SIPs since it is believed that by 2018, 

EPA will have re-promulgated an 

industrial boiler MACT rule or the states 

will have addressed the issue through 

state-level case-by-case MACT reviews 

in accordance with section 112(j) of the 

CAA. EPA finds this approach 

acceptable for the following reasons. 

EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler 

MACT rule to address the vacatur on 

June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006), and issued 

a final rule on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 

15608), giving West Virginia time to 

assure the required controls are in place 

prior to the end of the first 

implementation period in 2018. In the 

absence of an established MACT rule for 

boilers and process heaters, the 

statutory language in section 112(j) of 

the CAA specifies a schedule for the 

incorporation of enforceable MACTequivalent limits into the title V 

operating permits of affected sources. 

Should circumstances warrant the need 

to implement section 112(j) of the CAA 

for industrial boilers, we would expect, 

in this case, that compliance with caseby-case MACT limits for industrial 

boilers would occur no later than 

January 2015, which is well before the 

2018 RPGs for regional haze. In 

addition, the RHR requires that any 

resulting differences between emissions 

projections and actual emissions 

reductions that may occur will be 

addressed during the five-year review 

prior to the next 2018 regional haze SIP. 

The expected reductions due to the 

original, vacated Industrial Boiler 

MACT rule were relatively small 

compared to the State’s total SO2, PM2.5, 

and coarse particulate matter (PM10) 

emissions in 2018 (i.e., 0.5 to 1.5 

percent, depending on the pollutant, of 

the projected 2018 SO2, PM2.5, and PM10

inventory), and not likely to affect any 

of West Virginia’s modeling 

conclusions. Thus, if there is a need to 

address discrepancies such that 

projected emissions reductions from the 

now-vacated Industrial Boiler MACT 

were greater than actual reductions 

achieved by the replacement MACT, we 

would not expect that this would affect 

the adequacy of the existing West 

Virginia regional haze SIP. 

Below, in Tables 2 and 3, are 

summaries of the 2002 baseline and 

2018 estimated emission inventories for 

West Virginia. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41168 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR WEST VIRGINIA

[Tons per year] 

VOC NH3 PM10 PM2.5 NOX SO2

Point ......................................................................................................... 15,775 453 22,076 15,523 277,589 570,153 

Area .......................................................................................................... 60,443 9,963 115,346 21,049 12,687 11,667 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 45,284 2,036 1,481 1,068 63,525 2,635 

Non-Road Mobile ..................................................................................... 18,566 9 1,850 1,728 33,329 2,112 

Biogenics .................................................................................................. 357,850 N/A N/A N/A 2,776 N/A 

Total .................................................................................................. 499,976 12,461 143,771 42,385 390,703 586,568 

* N/A—Not applicable. 

TABLE 3—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR WEST VIRGINIA

[Tons per year] 

VOC NH3 PM10 PM2.5 NOX SO2

Point ......................................................................................................... 17,952 593 28,084 20,165 94,600 177,517 

Area (includes fires) ................................................................................. 62,806 11,504 124,566 24,507 15,716 12,849 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 14,652 2,268 747 369 15,530 231 

Non-road Mobile ...................................................................................... 14,086 13 1,292 1,198 25,710 56 

Biogenics .................................................................................................. 357,850 N/A N/A N/A 2,776 N/A 

Total .................................................................................................. 467,347 14,377 154,688 46,239 154,332 190,653 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

VISTAS performed modeling for the 

regional haze LTS for the 10 

southeastern states, including West 

Virginia. The modeling analysis is a 

complex technical evaluation that began 

with selection of the modeling system. 

VISTAS used the following modeling 

system: 

• Meteorological Model: The 

Pennsylvania State University/National 

Center for Atmospheric Research 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a 

nonhydrostatic, prognostic 

meteorological model routinely used for 

urban- and regional-scale 

photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze 

regulatory modeling studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

modeling system is an emissions 

modeling system that generates hourly 

gridded speciated emission inputs of 

mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, 

fire and biogenic emission sources for 

photochemical grid models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. The 

photochemical model selected for this 

study was CMAQ, version 4.5. It was 

modified through VISTAS with a 

module for Secondary Organics 

Aerosols in an open and transparent 

manner that was also subjected to 

outside peer review. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12 x 12 

kilometer (km) cells that covers the 10 

VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Virginia, West Virginia) and states 

adjacent to them. This grid is nested 

within a larger national CMAQ 

modeling grid of 36 x 36 km grid cells 

that covers the continental United 

States, portions of Canada and Mexico, 

and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans along the east and west coasts. 

Selection of a representative period of 

meteorology is crucial for evaluating 

baseline air quality conditions and 

projecting future changes in air quality 

due to changes in emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants. VISTAS 

conducted an in-depth analysis which 

resulted in the selection of the entire 

year of 2002 (January 1–December 31) as 

the best period of meteorology available 

for conducting the CMAQ modeling. 

The VISTAS states modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 

located at http://www.epa.gov/

scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-guidance.pdf, (EPA–454/B–07–002), 

April 2007, and EPA document, 

Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Regional Haze Regulations, located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/

eiguid/index.html, EPA–454/R–05–001, 

August 2005, updated November 2005 

(‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’). 

VISTAS examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once VISTAS determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

VISTAS used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), the State of West Virginia 

provided the appropriate supporting 

documentation for all required analyses 

used to determine the State’s LTS. The 

technical analyses and modeling used to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41169 

9EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled, ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for the Modeling Portions of the 

State of West Virginia’s Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (SIP)’’ is included in the 

public docket for this action. 

develop the glidepath and to support 

the LTS are consistent with EPA’s RHR, 

and interim and final EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA accepts the VISTAS 

technical modeling to support the LTS 

and determine visibility improvement 

for the uniform rate of progress because 

the modeling system was chosen and 

simulated according to EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA’s analysis of VISTAS 

modeling procedures and results is in 

the accompanying Technical Support 

Document (TSD).9 EPA agrees with the 

VISTAS model performance procedures 

and results, and that the CMAQ is an 

appropriate tool for the regional haze 

assessments for the West Virginia LTS 

and regional haze SIP. 

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, source sectors, and 

geographic areas, VISTAS developed 

emission sensitivity model runs using 

CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air 

quality impacts from various groups of 

emissions and pollutant scenarios in the 

Class I areas on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

VISTAS region, VISTAS’ contribution 

assessment, based on IMPROVE 

monitoring data, demonstrated that 

ammonium sulfate is the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 

2000–2004, ammonium sulfate 

accounted for greater than 70 percent of 

the calculated light extinction at Class I 

areas in the Southern Appalachians. In 

particular, for Dolly Sods Wilderness 

Area, sulfate particles resulting from 

SO2 emissions contribute roughly 80 

percent to the calculated light extinction 

on the haziest days. In contrast, 

ammonium nitrate contributed less than 

five percent of the calculated light 

extinction at VISTAS Class I areas on 

the 20 percent worst visibility days. 

Particulate organic matter (organic 

carbon) accounted for 10–20 percent of 

light extinction on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days. 

VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas 

into two types, either ‘‘coastal’’ or 

‘‘inland’’ (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘mountain’’) sites, based on common/ 

similar characteristics (e.g. terrain, 

geography, meteorology), to better 

represent variations in model sensitivity 

and performance within the VISTAS 

region, and to describe the common 

factors influencing visibility conditions 

in the two types of Class I areas. West 

Virginia’s Class I areas are both 

‘‘inland’’ areas. 

Results from VISTAS’ emission 

sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate 

particles resulting from SO2 emissions 

are the dominant contributor to 

visibility impairment on the 20 percent 

worst days at all Class I areas in 

VISTAS, including the two West 

Virginia areas. West Virginia concluded 

that reducing SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU point sources in the 

VISTAS states would have the greatest 

visibility benefits for the West Virginia 

Class I areas. Because ammonium 

nitrate is a small contributor to PM2.5

mass and visibility impairment on the 

20 percent worst days at the inland 

Class I areas in VISTAS, which include 

Dolly Sods Wilderness Area and Otter 

Creek Wilderness Area, the benefits of 

reducing NOX and NH3 emissions at 

these sites are small. 

The VISTAS sensitivity analyses 

show that VOC emissions from biogenic 

sources such as vegetation also 

contribute to visibility impairment. 

However, control of these biogenic 

sources of VOC would be extremely 

difficult, if not impossible. The 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions are minor compared to the 

biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions would have little if any 

visibility benefits at the Class I areas in 

the VISTAS region, including West 

Virginia. The sensitivity analyses also 

show that reducing primary carbon from 

point sources, ground level sources, or 

fires is projected to have small to no 

visibility benefit at the VISTAS Class I 

areas. 

West Virginia considered the factors 

listed in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) to 

develop its LTS, as described below. 

West Virginia, in conjunction with 

VISTAS, demonstrated in its SIP that 

elemental carbon (a product of highway 

and non-road diesel engines, 

agricultural burning, prescribed fires, 

and wildfires), fine soils (a product of 

construction activities and activities 

that generate fugitive dust), and 

ammonia are relatively minor 

contributors to visibility impairment at 

the Class I areas in West Virginia. 

WVDEP is not adopting any additional 

controls on agricultural fires, prescribed 

fires, and wildfires, but does have a rule 

in place, Regulation 45CSR6—To 

Prevent and Control Air Pollution from 

Combustion of Refuse (74 FR 12560, 

March 25, 2009), which adopted 

revisions to include a provision for 

prescribed burning. In addition, the 

WVDEP has a number of rules in place 

that require the control of fugitive dust 

within plant boundaries, these include 

Regulation 45CSR2—To Prevent and 

Control Particulate Air Pollution from 

Combustion of Fuel in Indirect Heat 

Exchangers (68 FR 47473, August 11, 

2003); Regulation 45CSR3—To Prevent 

and Control Air Pollution from the 

Operation of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants (67 

FR 63270, October 11, 2002); Regulation 

45CSR5—To Prevent and Control Air 

Pollution from the Operation of Coal 

Preparation Plants, Coal Handling 

Operations and Coal Refuse Disposal 

Areas (67 FR 62379, October 7, 2002); 

and Regulation 45CSR7—To Prevent 

and Control Particulate Matter Air (68 

FR 33010, June 3, 2003). EPA concurs 

with the State’s technical demonstration 

showing that elemental carbon, fine 

soils, and ammonia are not significant 

contributors to visibility in the State’s 

Class I areas, and therefore, finds that 

West Virginia has adequately satisfied 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by VISTAS predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

VISTAS region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. Specific 

to West Virginia, the VISTAS sensitivity 

analysis projects visibility benefits in 

Dolly Sods Wilderness Area and Otter 

Creek Wilderness Area from SO2

reductions from EGUs in eight of the 10 

VISTAS states: Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West 

Virginia. Additional, smaller benefits 

are projected from SO2 emission 

reductions from non-utility industrial 

point sources. SO2 emissions 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from other RPO regions are 

comparatively small in contrast to the 

VISTAS states’ contributions, and thus, 

controlling sources outside of the 

VISTAS region is predicted to provide 

less significant improvements in 

visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS. 

Taking the VISTAS sensitivity 

analyses results into consideration, 

West Virginia concluded that reducing 

SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU 

point sources in certain VISTAS states 

would have the greatest visibility 

benefits for the West Virginia Class I 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41170 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

10Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated 

in a voluntary regional partnership ‘‘to identify and 

recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing 

and prevent future adverse effects from humaninduced air pollution on the air quality related 

values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.’’ 

States cooperated with FLMs, the USEPA, industry, 

environmental organizations, and academia to 

complete a technical assessment of the impacts of 

acid deposition, ozone, and fine particles on 

sensitive resources in the Southern Appalachians. 

The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August 

2002. 

11See also West Virginia SIP Appendix H 

fractional contribution analysis tables for each Class 

I Area. 

areas. The State chose to focus solely on 

evaluating certain SO2 sources 

contributing to visibility impairment to 

the State’s Class I areas for additional 

emission reductions for reasonable 

progress in this first implementation 

period. EPA agrees with the State’s 

analyses and conclusions used to 

determine the pollutants and source 

categories that most contribute to 

visibility impairment in the West 

Virginia Class I areas, and finds the 

State’s approach to focus on developing 

a LTS that includes largely additional 

measures for point sources of SO2

emissions to be appropriate. 

SO2 sources for which it is 

demonstrated that no additional 

controls are reasonable in this current 

implementation period will not be 

exempted from future assessments for 

controls in subsequent implementation 

periods or, when appropriate, from the 

five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future 

implementation periods, additional 

controls on these SO2 sources evaluated 

in the first implementation period may 

be determined to be reasonable, based 

on a reasonable progress control 

evaluation, for continued progress 

toward natural conditions for the 20 

percent worst days and to avoid further 

degradation of the 20 percent best days. 

Similarly, in subsequent 

implementation periods, the State may 

use different criteria for identifying 

sources for evaluation and may consider 

other pollutants as visibility conditions 

change over time. 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in West Virginia and 

Surrounding Areas 

Through comprehensive evaluations 

by VISTAS and the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains Initiative 

(SAMI),10 the VISTAS states concluded 

that sulfate particles resulting from SO2

emissions account for the greatest 

portion of the regional haze affecting the 

Class I areas in VISTAS states, including 

those in West Virginia. Utility and nonutility boilers are the main sources of 

SO2 emissions within the southeastern 

United States. VISTAS developed a 

methodology for West Virginia, which 

enables the State to focus its reasonable 

progress analysis on those geographic 

regions and source categories that 

impact visibility at each of its Class I 

areas. Recognizing that there was 

neither sufficient time nor adequate 

resources available to evaluate all 

emission units within a given area of 

influence (AOI) around each Class I area 

that West Virginia’s sources impact, the 

State established a threshold to 

determine which emission units would 

be evaluated for reasonable progress 

control. In applying this methodology, 

WVDEP first calculated the fractional 

contribution to visibility impairment 

from all emission units within the SO2

AOI for each of its Class I areas, and 

those surrounding areas in other states 

potentially impacted by emissions from 

emission units in West Virginia. The 

State then identified those emission 

units with a contribution of one percent 

or more to the visibility impairment at 

that particular Class I area, and 

evaluated each of these units for control 

measures for reasonable progress, using 

the following four ‘‘reasonable progress 

factors’’ as required under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of 

compliance; (ii) time necessary for 

compliance; (iii) energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (iv) remaining useful 

life of the emission unit. 

West Virginia’s SO2 AOI methodology 

captured greater than 64 percent of the 

total point source SO2 contribution to 

visibility impairment in the two Class I 

areas in West Virginia, and required an 

evaluation of 17 emission units. 

Capturing a significantly greater 

percentage of the total contribution 

would involve an evaluation of many 

more emission units that have 

substantially less impact. EPA believes 

the approach developed by VISTAS and 

implemented for the Class I areas in 

West Virginia is a reasonable 

methodology to prioritize the most 

significant contributors to regional haze 

and to identify sources to assess for 

reasonable progress control in the 

State’s Class I areas. The approach is 

consistent with EPA’s Reasonable 

Progress Guidance. The technical 

approach of VISTAS and West Virginia 

was objective and based on several 

analyses, which included a large 

universe of emission units within and 

surrounding the State of West Virginia 

and all of the 18 VISTAS Class I areas. 

It also included an analysis of the 

VISTAS emission units affecting nearby 

Class I areas surrounding the VISTAS 

states that are located in other RPOs’ 

Class I areas. 

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors 

in the Reasonable Progress Analysis 

WVDEP identified 17 EGU units with 

SO2 emissions that were above the 

State’s minimum threshold for 

reasonable progress evaluation because 

they were modeled to fall within the 

sulfate AOI of any Class I area and have 

a one percent or greater contribution to 

the sulfate visibility impairment to at 

least one Class I area.11

a. Facilities With an Emissions Unit 

Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis 

Only one facility was a non-EGU that 

was subject to the four factor reasonable 

progress analysis. That facility is Capitol 

Cement which showed a greater than 

1% contribution to Shenandoah 

National Park in Virginia. WVDEP 

analyzed whether SO2 controls should 

be required for one facility, Capitol 

Cement, based on a consideration of the 

four factors set out in the CAA and 

EPA’s regulations. For the limited 

purpose of evaluating the cost of 

compliance for the reasonable progress 

assessment in this first regional haze SIP 

for the non-EGUs, WVDEP concluded 

that it was not equitable to require nonEGUs to bear a greater economic burden 

than EGUs for a given control strategy. 

Using the CAIR rule as a guide, a cost 

of $2,000 per ton of SO2 controlled or 

reduced was used as a determiner of 

cost effectiveness. 

Capitol Cement is a portland cement 

manufacturing facility. Only Kiln 7 at 

Capitol Cement was identified as 

requiring reasonable progress analysis 

since Kilns 8 and 9 were replaced in 

2002. WVDEP determined that the new 

preheater kiln should also be reviewed 

with respect to reasonable progress. 

VISTAS contracted with Alpine 

Geophysics to evaluate control options 

and costs for sources within AOI for the 

Class I areas of concern, including 

Capitol Cement. Alpine used EPA’s Air 

ControlNet software to evaluate control 

options and costs for controls on Kiln 7. 

The control option identified was flue 

gas desulfurization (FGD) with a cost 

effectiveness of $25,266 per ton, which 

exceeds the State’s $2,000 costeffectiveness threshold for 

reasonableness. For the precalciner 

system, the control options and costs for 

controls were developed by the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE–VU) RPO through a contract 

with MACTEC, Inc., and published in 

the project report, Assessment of 

Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze 

In MANE–VU Class I Areas, dated July 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41171 

9, 2007. WVDEP used this report for 

considering other control options and 

costs. The control options evaluated 

were Dry FGD, West FGD, and 

Advanced FGD. The cost per ton of SO2

removed ranged from $9,700–$72,800. 

All control options are well above the 

State’s $2,000 cost-effectiveness 

threshold for reasonableness. The other 

statutory factors: (1) Time of necessary 

for compliance, (2) the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, and (3) the remaining 

useful life of the emissions unit, were 

deemed not applicable, since there were 

no cost effective controls to evaluate. 

As noted in EPA’s Reasonable 

Progress Guidance, the states have wide 

latitude to determine appropriate 

additional control requirements for 

ensuring reasonable progress, and there 

are many ways for a state to approach 

identification of additional reasonable 

measures. In determining reasonable 

progress, states must consider, at a 

minimum, the four statutory factors, but 

states have flexibility in how to take 

these factors into consideration. 

West Virginia applied the 

methodology developed by VISTAS for 

identifying appropriate sources to be 

considered for additional controls under 

reasonable progress for the 

implementation period addressed by 

this SIP, which ends in 2018. Using this 

methodology, WVDEP first identified 

those emissions and emissions units 

most likely to have an impact on 

visibility in the State’s Class I areas. 

Units with emissions of SO2 with a 

relative contribution to visibility 

impairment of at least a one percent 

contribution at any Class I area were 

then subject to further analysis to 

determine whether it would be 

appropriate to require controls on these 

units for purposes of reasonable 

progress. As noted above, of the 

emission units in West Virginia, one 

unit was subject to this analysis. 

WVDEP concluded, based on their 

evaluation of Capitol Cement, that no 

further controls were warranted at this 

time. 

Having reviewed WVDEP’s 

methodology and analyses presented in 

the SIP materials prepared by WVDEP, 

EPA is proposing to approve West 

Virginia’s conclusion that no further 

controls are reasonable for this 

implementation period for the reviewed 

sources. EPA agrees with the State’s 

approach of identifying the key 

pollutants contributing to visibility 

impairment at its Class I areas, and 

consider their methodology to identify 

sources of SO2 most likely to have an 

impact on visibility on any Class I area, 

to be an appropriate methodology for 

narrowing the scope of the State’s 

analysis. In general, EPA also finds West 

Virginia’s evaluation of the four 

statutory factors for reasonable progress 

to be reasonable. Although the use of a 

specific threshold for assessing costs 

means that West Virginia may not have 

fully considered other available 

emissions reduction measures above 

their threshold, EPA believes that the 

West Virginia SIP still ensures 

reasonable progress. EPA notes that 

given the emissions reductions resulting 

from CAIR, West Virginia’s BART 

determinations, and the measures in 

nearby states, the visibility 

improvements projected for the affected 

Class I areas are in excess of that needed 

to be on the uniform rate of progress 

glidepath. In considering West 

Virginia’s approach, EPA is also 

proposing to place great weight on the 

fact that there is no indication in the SIP 

submittal that West Virginia, as a result 

of using a specific cost effectiveness 

threshold, rejected potential reasonable 

progress measures that would have had 

a meaningful impact on visibility in its 

Class I areas. In addition, EPA finds that 

West Virginia fully evaluated, in terms 

of the four reasonable progress factors, 

all control technologies available at the 

time of its analysis and applicable to 

these facilities. 

b. Emission Units Exempted From 

Preparing a Reasonable Progress Control 

Analysis 

Seventeen emission units identified 

for a reasonable progress control 

analysis are EGUs. These EGUs are 

subject to CAIR and were also found to 

be subject to BART. These EGUs are 

Allegheny Energy—Ft. Martin, Harrison, 

and Pleasants; AEP-Appalachian PowerJohn Amos and Mountaineer; and 

Dominion-Mt. Storm. 

To determine whether any additional 

controls beyond those required by CAIR 

would be considered reasonable for 

West Virginia’s EGUs for this first 

implementation period, WVDEP 

evaluated the SO2 reductions expected 

from the EGU sector. The EGUs located 

in West Virginia are expected to reduce 

their 2002 SO2 emissions by 

approximately 78 percent by 2018. 

WVDEP believes it has an accurate 

understanding of where EGU emission 

reductions will occur in West Virginia 

based upon existing and planned 

installations of post combustion 

controls for the afore mentioned EGUs, 

that are or will be controlled with 

greater than 90% efficiency. 

To further evaluate whether CAIR 

requirements will satisfy reasonable 

progress for SO2 for EGUs, WVDEP 

considered the four reasonable progress 

factors set forth in EPA’s RHR as they 

apply to the State’s entire EGU sector for 

available control technologies. The State 

also reviewed CAIR requirements that 

include 2015 as the ‘‘earliest reasonable 

deadline for compliance’’ for EGUs 

installing retrofits, see (70 FR 25162, 

25197–25198, May 12, 2005). This is a 

particularly relevant consideration 

because CAIR addresses the reasonable 

progress factors of cost and time 

necessary for compliance. In the 

preamble to CAIR, EPA recognized there 

are a number of factors that influence 

compliance with the emission reduction 

requirements set forth in CAIR, which 

make the 2015 compliance date 

reasonable. For example, each EGU 

retrofit requires a large pool of 

specialized labor resources, which exist 

in limited quantities. In addition, 

retrofitting an EGU is a very capitalintensive venture and, therefore, 

undertaken with caution. Hence, 

allowing retrofits to be installed over 

time enables the industry to learn from 

early installations. Lastly, EGU retrofits 

over time minimize disruption of the 

power grid by enabling industry to take 

advantage of planned outages. 

Since EPA made the determination in 

CAIR that the earliest reasonable 

deadline for compliance for reducing 

emissions was 2015, WVDEP concluded 

that the emission reductions required by 

CAIR constitute reasonable measures for 

West Virginia EGUs during this first 

assessment period (between baseline 

and 2018). In addition, WVDEP notes 

that while the reasonable progress 

evaluation only applies to existing 

sources, the State will continue to 

follow the visibility analysis 

requirements as part of all new major 

source new source review (NSR) and 

PSD permitting actions. 

Prior to the CAIR remand by the D.C. 

Circuit, EPA believed the State’s 

demonstration that no additional 

controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for 

SO2 for affected EGUs for the first 

implementation period to be acceptable 

on the basis that the CAIR requirements, 

reflected the most cost-effective controls 

that can be achieved over the CAIR SO2

compliance timeframe, which spans out 

to 2015. However, the State’s 

demonstration regarding CAIR and 

reasonable progress for EGUs, and other 

provisions in this SIP revision, are 

based on CAIR and thus, the Agency 

proposes today to issue a limited 

approval and a limited disapproval of 

the State’s regional haze SIP revision. 

6. BART 

BART is an element of West Virginia’s 

LTS for the first implementation period. 

The BART evaluation process consists 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41172 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

12Note that our reference to CALPUFF 

encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, 

which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST models and other pre and post 

processors. The different versions of CALPUFF 

have corresponding versions of CALMET, 

CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with 

previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer 

version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 

older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 

of the CALPUFF modeling system are available 

from the model developer on the following Web 

site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/ 

download.htm. 

of three components: (a) An 

identification of all the BART-eligible 

sources, (b) an assessment of whether 

the BART-eligible sources are subject to 

BART, and (c) a determination of the 

BART controls. These components, as 

addressed by WVDEP and WVDEP’s 

findings, are discussed below. 

a. BART-Eligible Sources 

The first phase of a BART evaluation 

is to identify all the BART-eligible 

sources within the state’s boundaries. 

WVDEP identified the BART-eligible 

sources in West Virginia by utilizing the 

three eligibility criteria in the BART 

Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA’s 

regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or 

more emission units at the facility fit 

within one of the 26 categories listed in 

the BART Guidelines; (2) emission 

unit(s) was constructed on or after 

August 6, 1962, and was in existence 

prior to August 6, 1977; and (3) 

potential emissions of any visibilityimpairing pollutant from subject units 

are 250 tons or more per year. 

The BART Guidelines also direct 

states to address SO2, NOX and direct 

PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5) 

emissions as visibility-impairment 

pollutants, and to exercise judgment in 

determining whether VOC or ammonia 

emissions from a source impair 

visibility in an area (70 FR 39160). 

VISTAS modeling demonstrated that 

VOC from anthropogenic sources and 

ammonia from point sources are not 

significant visibility-impairing 

pollutants in West Virginia. WVDEP has 

determined, based on the VISTAS 

modeling, that VOC and ammonia 

emissions from the State’s point sources 

are not anticipated to cause or 

contribute significantly to any 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas 

and should be exempt for BART 

purposes. 

b. BART-Subject Sources 

The second phase of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e., those sources that are subject to 

BART. The BART Guidelines allow 

states to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, West Virginia 

required each of its BART-eligible 

sources to develop and submit 

dispersion modeling to assess the extent 

of their contribution to visibility 

impairment at surrounding Class I areas. 

The BART Guidelines allow states to 

use the CALPUFF 12 modeling system or 

another appropriate model to predict 

the visibility impacts from a single 

source on a Class I area, and to 

therefore, determine whether an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to 

BART.’’ The Guidelines state that EPA 

believes CALPUFF is the best regulatory 

modeling application currently 

available for predicting a single source’s 

contribution to visibility impairment (70 

FR 39162). West Virginia, in 

coordination with VISTAS, used the 

CALPUFF modeling system to 

determine whether individual sources 

in West Virginia were subject to or 

exempt from BART. 

The BART Guidelines also 

recommend that states develop a 

modeling protocol for making 

individual source attributions, and 

suggest that states may want to consult 

with EPA and their RPO to address any 

issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS 

states, including West Virginia, 

developed a ‘‘Protocol for the 

Application of CALPUFF for BART 

Analyses.’’ Stakeholders, including 

EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade 

groups, and other interested parties, 

actively participated in the development 

and review of the VISTAS protocol. 

VISTAS developed a post-processing 

approach to use the new IMPROVE 

equation with the CALPUFF model 

results so that the BART analyses could 

consider both the old and new 

IMPROVE equations. 

For states using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that the first step is to set a 

contribution threshold to assess whether 

the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

The BART Guidelines state that, ‘‘A 

single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘cause’ visibility 

impairment.’’ The BART Guidelines 

also state that ‘‘the appropriate 

threshold for determining whether a 

source ‘contributes to visibility 

impairment’ may reasonably differ 

across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general 

matter, any threshold that you use for 

determining whether a source 

‘contributes’ to visibility impairment 

should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews.’’ The Guidelines affirm that 

states are free to use a lower threshold 

if they conclude that the location of a 

large number of BART-eligible sources 

in proximity of a Class I area justifies 

this approach. 

West Virginia used a contribution 

threshold of 0.5 deciview for 

determining which sources are subject 

to BART. EPA agrees with the State’s 

rationale for choosing this threshold 

value. The results of the visibility 

impacts modeling demonstrated that the 

majority of the individual BART-eligible 

sources had visibility impacts well 

below 0.5 deciview. 

West Virginia initially identified 

twenty-two BART-eligible sources. The 

State subsequently determined that 

nineteen sources are exempt from being 

considered BART-eligible. Nineteen of 

the twenty-two sources were able to 

demonstrate exemptions with modeling 

demonstrations. Table 4 identifies the 

nineteen BART-exempt facilities located 

in West Virginia, and identifies the 

three sources subject to BART. 

TABLE 4—WEST VIRGINIA BART-ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART 

SOURCES

Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART 

Analysis 

Dominion—Mt. Storm.13

PPG Industries. 

Capitol Cement. 

Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to 

BART 

EGU CAIR and BART Modeling Sources: 

AEP-Appalachian Power Co.—John Amos. 

AEP-Ohio Power Co.—Mitchell. 

AEP-Appalachian Power Co.—Mountaineer. 

Allegheny Energy—Ft. Martin. 

Allegheny Energy—Harrison. 

Allegheny Energy—Pleasants. 

Non-EGU BART Modeling: 

Mittal Steel USA—Weirton, Inc. 

Mountain State Carbon. 

ERGON Corp.—West Virginia, Inc. 

Century Aluminum. 

DuPont Belle. 

Clearon. 

Pocahontas Coal Co.—Eastern Gulf Prep 

Plant. 

GE Woodmark. 

Pinnacle Mining—No. 50 Coal Prep Plant. 

Kepler Processing. 

Bayer. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41173 

13EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. 

West Virginia relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for 

SO2 and NOX for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2 and NOX were 

not analyzed. 

TABLE 4—WEST VIRGINIA BART-ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART 

SOURCES—Continued 

Columbia Chemicals. 

Cabot Corporation. 

West Virginia found that three of its 

BART-eligible sources (i.e., Dominion— 

Mt. Storm, PPG Industries, and Capitol 

Cement) had modeled visibility impacts 

of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold 

for BART exemption. These three 

facilities are considered to be subject to 

BART and submitted State permit 

applications including their proposed 

BART determinations. 

Although PPG Industries initially 

modeled a visibility impact greater than 

0.5 deciviews on multiple Class I areas, 

PPG Industries elected to accept a 

permit limit on its BART eligible unit, 

which reduces its visibility impact to 

below the exemption threshold of 0.5 

deciviews of impact at any Class I area. 

Therefore, PPG Industries is now 

considered BART exempt. 

The remaining nineteen sources 

demonstrated that they are exempt from 

being subject to BART by modeling less 

than a 0.5 deciview visibility impact at 

the affected Class I areas. The seven 

BART-eligible EGUs only modeled PM10

emissions because West Virginia relied 

on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and 

NOX for its EGUs in CAIR, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

Six out of the seven EGUs modeling 

demonstrated that PM10 emissions do 

not contribute to visibility impairment 

in any Class I area. Modeling at the 

Dominion—Mt. Storm, on the other 

hand, demonstrated that its PM10

emissions exceeded the 0.5 deciview 

contribution threshold and thus, 

required a BART analysis. Prior to the 

CAIR remand, the State’s reliance on 

CAIR to satisfy BART for NOX and SO2

for affected CAIR EGUs was fully 

approvable and in accordance with 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, as explained 

in section IV of this notice, the BART 

assessments for CAIR EGUs for NOX and 

SO2 and other provisions in this SIP 

revision are based on CAIR, and thus, 

the Agency proposes today to issue a 

limited approval and a limited 

disapproval of the State’s June 18, 2008, 

regional haze SIP revision. 

c. BART Determinations 

Dominion—Mt. Storm has modeled 

visibility impacts of more than the 0.5 

deciview threshold for BART exemption 

and, therefore, is considered to be 

subject to BART for PM10 only. Capitol 

Cement did not submit an exemption 

modeling demonstration because the 

BART unit is scheduled to be replaced. 

Since these two facilities did not 

demonstrate that they are exempt from 

BART, each one submitted to the State, 

permit applications that included their 

proposed BART determinations. 

In accordance with the BART 

Guidelines, to determine the level of 

control that represents BART for each 

source, the State first reviewed existing 

controls on these units to assess 

whether these constituted the best 

controls currently available, then 

identified what other technically 

feasible controls are available, and 

finally, evaluated the technically 

feasible controls using the five BART 

statutory factors. The State’s evaluations 

and conclusions, and EPA’s assessment, 

are summarized below. 

Dominion—Mt. Storm is an EGU 

containing three BART-subject units 

and is only subject to BART for PM10. 

Units 1, 2, and 3 are subject to BART. 

The current PM controls of electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) and flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) were determined 

to satisfy BART, however, the allowable 

PM10 emission rate was lowered from 

0.05 pounds per million british thermal 

units (lb/mmBtu) to 0.03 lb/mmBtu, 

resulting in a reduction of up to 508 

tons per year (tpy) per unit, or 

maximum reduction of 1524 tpy. The 

EPS and FGD must aggregate 99.5 

percent PM10 removal efficiency. The 

compliance date for Dominion—Mt. 

Storm is December 13, 2007 for BART 

controls. 

The three emission units at 

Dominion—Mt. Storm are also subject to 

the EPA CAIR. Dominion—Mt. Storm 

has already installed scrubbers and NOX

controls on the emission units at this 

facility. West Virginia has opted to rely 

on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and 

NOX for its EGUs subject to CAIR, as 

allowed by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

Once the BART limits are established, 

the source is then required by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(v) to maintain the control 

equipment required and establish 

procedures to ensure such equipment is 

properly operated and maintained. For 

Dominion—Mt. Storm, Units 1, 2, and 3 

are required to calculate the potential 

particulate matter emissions on a daily 

basis using the monitoring procedures 

and calculation methodology outlined 

in Regulation 45 CSR 2’s monitoring 

plan. Dominion—Mt. Storm shall record 

any instance of calculated emissions in 

excess of the limits given above and any 

corrective actions taken. Dominion—Mt. 

Storm shall also maintain and operate, 

at all reasonable times, appropriate 

equipment on the ESP and FGD, to 

continuously monitor the performance 

of each control device. PM10 testing is 

done in accordance with the schedule 

listed in Regulation 45 CSR 2. 

EPA agrees with WVDEP’s analyses 

and conclusions for the BART emission 

units located at Dominion—Mt. Storm. 

EPA has reviewed the West Virginia 

analyses and concluded they were 

conducted in a manner that is consistent 

with EPA’s BART Guidelines. 

Therefore, the conclusions reflect a 

reasonable application of EPA’s 

guidance to this source. 

PPG Industries elected to accept a 

permit limit on its BART eligible unit 

which reduces its visibility impact to 

below the exemption threshold of 0.5 

deciview impact at any Class I area. 

Therefore, PPG is considered BART 

exempt. PPG Industries has taken a 

BART limit of 1478.8 pounds per hour 

(lbs/hour) on Boiler 5 and the total SO2

emissions from Boilers 3, 4, and 5 shall 

not exceed 3766.8 lbs/hour. PPG 

Industries is required to get 4690.56 tpy 

of SO2 emission reductions from Boiler 

5 by May 1, 2008. EPA agrees with 

WVDEP’s conclusion that PPG 

Industries is now BART-exempt based 

on the threshold of 0.5 deciview impact 

sited in EPA’s BART guidance. 

Capitol Cement is a Portland cement 

manufacturing facility located in 

Martinsburg, WV that previously 

applied for and had been granted a PSD 

permit. The PSD permit was for the 

replacement of two existing long wet 

process cement kilns and associated 

clinker coolers with a modern 

precalciner system and associated 

equipment. The only BART-eligible unit 

at the facility, Kiln 9, is one of the two 

kilns being replaced, and the permit 

includes a requirement for the 

permanent shutdown of the existing 

kilns. 

WVDEP has determined no additional 

controls would need to be installed on 

Kiln 9 since the PSD permit requires a 

permanent shutdown of the existing 

kiln by the BART compliance deadline, 

or when full-production was achieved 

with the replacement kiln, or no later 

than 180 days after startup. The 

modifications at Capitol Cement are 

expected to result in 1741.51 tpy of SO2

reductions, 1374.81 tpy of NOX

reductions, and 66.01 tpy of PM10

reductions. EPA agrees with WVDEP’s 

conclusions for BART for the Capitol 

Cement facility: That no additional 

controls need to be installed prior to 

permanent shutdown of Kiln 9. 

The BART determinations for each of 

the facilities discussed above and the 

resulting BART emission limits were 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41174 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

14Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas 

similarly relied on CAIR emission reductions 

within the state to address some or all of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in other states’ 

Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area 

state(s) used to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). 

Certain surrounding non-CAIR states also relied on 

reductions due to CAIR in nearby states to develop 

their regional haze SIP submittals. 

adopted by West Virginia into the 

State’s regional haze SIP. WVDEP 

incorporated the BART emission limits 

into state operating permits, and 

submitted these permits as part of the 

State’s regional haze SIP. The BART 

limits adopted in the SIP are as follows: 

For Dominion—Mt. Storm, an allowable 

PM10 emission rate of 0.03lb/mmBtu for 

Units 1, 2, and 3; for PPG Industries, a 

limit of 1478.8 lbs/hr for Boiler 5; and 

for Capitol Cement, to shutdown Kiln 9 

within 180 days of startup of the new 

preheater-precalciner kiln, or when fullproduction is achieved with the 

replacement kiln, or before BART 

Compliance deadline, whichever comes 

first. The BART compliance dates West 

Virginia has set in their June 18, 2008 

Regional Haze Submittal comply with 

the BART Rule requiring controls be 

implemented no later than five years 

after publication in the Federal Register 

for the U.S. EPA Final Approval of the 

West Virginia Regional Haze SIP. 

7. RPGs 

The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) 

requires states to establish RPGs for 

each Class I area within the state 

(expressed in deciviews) that provide 

for reasonable progress towards 

achieving natural visibility. VISTAS 

modeled visibility improvements under 

existing Federal and State regulations 

for the period 2004–2018, and 

additional control measures which the 

VISTAS states planned to implement in 

the first implementation period. At the 

time of VISTAS modeling, some of the 

other states with sources potentially 

impacting visibility at the West Virginia 

Class I areas had not yet made final 

control determinations for BART and/or 

reasonable progress, and thus, these 

controls were not included in the 

modeling submitted by West Virginia. 

Any controls resulting from those 

determinations will provide additional 

emissions reductions and resulting 

visibility improvement, which give 

further assurances that West Virginia 

will achieve its RPGs. This modeling 

demonstrates that the 2018 base control 

scenario provides for an improvement 

in visibility better than the uniform rate 

of progress for both of the West 

Virginia’s Class I areas for the most 

impaired days over the period of the 

implementation plan and ensures no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. 

As shown in Table 5 below, West 

Virginia’s RPGs for the 20 percent worst 

days provide greater visibility 

improvement by 2018 than the uniform 

rate of progress for the State’s Class I 

areas. Also, the RPGs for the 20 percent 

best days provide greater visibility 

improvement by 2018 than current best 

day conditions. The modeling 

supporting the analysis of these RPGs is 

consistent with EPA guidance prior to 

the CAIR remand. The regional haze 

provisions specify that a state may not 

adopt a RPG that represents less 

visibility improvement than is expected 

to result from other CAA requirements 

during the implementation period. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the 

CAIR states with Class I areas, like West 

Virginia, took into account emission 

reductions anticipated from CAIR in 

determining their 2018 RPGs.14

TABLE 5—WEST VIRGINIA RPGS

[In deciviews] 

Class I area Baseline visibility, 

20% worst days 

2018 Reasonable 

progress goal, 

20% worst days 

(improvement from 

baseline) 

Uniform rate of 

progress at 2018, 

20% worst days 

Baseline visibility, 

20% best days 

2018 Reasonable 

progress goal, 

20% best days 

(improvement from 

baseline) 

Dolly Sods Wilderness Area ............. 29.0 21.7 (7.3) 24.7 12.3 11.1 (1.2) 

Otter Creek Wilderness Area ............. 29.0 21.7 (7.3) 24.7 12.3 11.1 (1.2) 

The RPGs for the Class I areas in West 

Virginia are based on modeled 

projections of future conditions that 

were developed using the best available 

information at the time the analysis was 

done. These projections can be expected 

to change as additional information 

regarding future conditions becomes 

available. For example, new sources 

may be built, existing sources may shut 

down or modify production in response 

to changed economic circumstances, 

and facilities may change their emission 

characteristics as they install control 

equipment to comply with new rules. It 

would be both impractical and resourceintensive to require a state to 

continually adjust the RPG every time 

an event affecting these future 

projections changed. 

EPA recognized the problems of a 

rigid requirement to meet a long-term 

goal based on modeled projections of 

future visibility conditions, and 

addressed the uncertainties associated 

with RPGs in several ways. EPA made 

clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a 

mandatory goal (64 FR 35733). At the 

same time, EPA established a 

requirement for a midcourse review 

and, if necessary, correction of the 

states’ regional haze plans. See 40 CFR 

52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls 

for a five-year progress review after 

submittal of the initial regional haze 

plan. The purpose of this progress 

review is to assess the effectiveness of 

emission management strategies in 

meeting the RPG and to provide an 

assessment of whether current 

implementation strategies are sufficient 

for the state or affected states to meet 

their RPGs. If a state concludes, based 

on its assessment, that the RPGs for a 

Class I area will not be met, the RHR 

requires the state to take appropriate 

action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h). The 

nature of the appropriate action will 

depend on the basis for the state’s 

conclusion that the current strategies are 

insufficient to meet the RPGs. 

EPA anticipates that the Transport 

Rule will result in similar or better 

improvements in visibility than 

predicted from CAIR. Because the 

Transport Rule is not final, however, we 

do not know at this time how it will 

affect any individual Class I area and 

cannot accurately model future 

conditions based on its implementation. 

By the time West Virginia is required to 

undertake its five year progress review, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41175 

15West Virginia also submitted a SIP revision 

addressing PSD that EPA approved on November 2, 

2006 (71 FR 64470) and NSR that EPA approved on 

November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64468). 

however, it is likely that the impact of 

the Transport Rule and other measures 

can be meaningfully assessed. If, in 

particular Class I areas, the Transport 

Rule does not provide similar or greater 

benefits than CAIR and meeting the 

RPGs at one of its Federal Class I Areas 

is in jeopardy, the State will be required 

to address this circumstance in its five 

year review. Accordingly, EPA proposes 

to approve West Virginia’s RPGs for the 

Dolly Sods Wilderness Area and the 

Otter Creek Wilderness Area. 

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

EPA’s visibility regulations direct 

states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and 

monitoring provisions with those for the 

RHR. Under EPA’s RAVI regulations, 

the RAVI portion of a state SIP must 

address any integral vistas identified by 

the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. 

An integral vista is defined in 40 CFR 

51.301 as a ‘‘view perceived from within 

the mandatory Class I Federal area of a 

specific landmark or panorama located 

outside the boundary of the mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ Visibility in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area includes 

any integral vista associated with that 

area. The FLMs did not identify any 

integral vistas in West Virginia. In 

addition, neither Class I area in West 

Virginia is experiencing RAVI, nor are 

any of its sources affected by the RAVI 

provisions. Thus, the June 18, 2008, 

West Virginia regional haze SIP 

submittal does not explicitly address the 

two requirements regarding 

coordination of the regional haze with 

the RAVI LTS and monitoring 

provisions. However, West Virginia 

previously made a commitment to 

address RAVI should the FLM certify 

visibility impairment from an 

individual source.15 EPA finds that this 

regional haze submittal appropriately 

supplements and augments West 

Virginia’s RAVI visibility provisions to 

address regional haze by updating the 

monitoring and LTS provisions. 

In the June 18, 2008 submittal, 

WVDEP updated its visibility 

monitoring program and developed a 

LTS to address regional haze. Also in 

this submittal, WVDEP affirmed its 

commitment to complete items required 

in the future under EPA’s RHR. 

Specifically, WVDEP made a 

commitment to review and revise its 

regional haze implementation plan and 

submit a plan revision to EPA by July 

31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance 

with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 

51.308(g) of EPA’s regional haze 

regulations and 40 CFR 51.306(c) of the 

RAVI LTS regulations, WVDEP made a 

commitment to submit a report to EPA 

on progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I area located within 

West Virginia, and in each mandatory 

Class I area located outside West 

Virginia which may be affected by 

emissions from within West Virginia. 

The progress report is required to be in 

the form of a SIP revision and is due 

every five years following the initial 

submittal of the regional haze SIP. 

Consistent with EPA’s monitoring 

regulations for RAVI and regional haze, 

West Virginia will rely on the IMPROVE 

network for compliance purposes, in 

addition to any RAVI monitoring that 

may be needed in the future. See 40 CFR 

51.305, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the 

West Virginia NSR rules, previously 

approved in the State’s SIP, continue to 

provide a framework for review and 

coordination with the FLMs on new 

sources which may have an adverse 

impact on visibility in either form (i.e., 

RAVI and/or regional haze) in any 

Federal Class I Area. 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

The primary monitoring network for 

regional haze in West Virginia is the 

IMPROVE network. There is currently 

one IMPROVE site in West Virginia, 

which serves as the monitoring site for 

both the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area 

and Otter Creek Wilderness Area. 

IMPROVE monitoring data from 

2000–2004 serves as the baseline for the 

regional haze program, and is relied 

upon in the June 18, 2008, regional haze 

submittal. In the submittal, West 

Virginia states its intention to rely on 

the IMPROVE network for complying 

with the regional haze monitoring 

requirement in EPA’s RHR for the 

current and future regional haze 

implementation periods. 

Data produced by the IMPROVE 

monitoring network will be used nearly 

continuously for preparing the five-year 

progress reports and the 10-year SIP 

revisions, each of which relies on 

analysis of the preceding five years of 

data. The Visibility Information 

Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web 

site has been maintained by VISTAS 

and the other RPOs to provide ready 

access to the IMPROVE data and data 

analysis tools. West Virginia is 

encouraging VISTAS and the other 

RPOs to maintain the VIEWS or a 

similar data management system to 

facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data. 

In addition to the IMPROVE 

measurements, there is long-term 

limited monitoring by the FLMs, which 

provides additional insight into the 

progress toward the regional haze goals. 

Such measurements include web 

cameras operated by the United States 

Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service at Dolly Sods. West Virginia and 

the local air agencies in the State 

operate a comprehensive PM2.5 network 

of filter-based Federal reference method 

monitors and filter based speciated 

monitors. 

F. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

In December 2006 and in May 2007, 

the State Air Directors from the VISTAS 

states held formal interstate 

consultation meetings. The purpose of 

the meetings was to discuss the 

methodology proposed by VISTAS for 

identifying sources to evaluate for 

reasonable progress. The states invited 

FLM and EPA representatives to 

participate and to provide additional 

feedback. The Directors discussed the 

results of analyses showing 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from states to each of the Class I areas 

in the VISTAS region. 

WVDEP has evaluated the impact of 

West Virginia sources on Class I areas in 

neighboring states. The state in which a 

Class I area is located is responsible for 

determining which sources, both inside 

and outside of that state, to evaluate for 

reasonable progress controls. Because 

many of these states had not yet defined 

their criteria for identifying sources to 

evaluate for reasonable progress, West 

Virginia applied its AOI methodology to 

identify sources in the State that have 

emission units with impacts large 

enough to potentially warrant further 

evaluation and analysis. Based on an 

evaluation of the four reasonable 

progress statutory factors, West Virginia 

determined that there are no additional 

control measures for these West Virginia 

emission units that would be reasonable 

to implement to mitigate visibility 

impacts in Class I areas in these 

neighboring states. WVDEP has 

consulted with these states regarding its 

reasonable progress control evaluations 

showing no cost-effective controls 

available for those emission units in 

West Virginia contributing at least one 

percent to visibility impairment at Class 

I areas in the states. Additionally, 

WVDEP sent letters to the other states in 

the VISTAS region documenting its 

analysis that there are no cost-effective 

controls available for those units whose 

SO2 emission contribute at least one 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41176 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

percent to visibility impairment at Class 

I areas. 

Regarding the impact of sources 

outside of the State on Class I areas in 

West Virginia, WVDEP sent letters to 

Maryland pertaining to the New Page 

facility located in Luke, Maryland 

because it contributes 11.81 percent of 

sulfate at Dolly Sods Wilderness Area 

with 9.86 percent attributable to two 

units, one of which is subject to BART. 

The Maryland Department of the 

Environment is still in the process of 

evaluating BART and reasonable 

progress for the New Page facility. Any 

controls resulting from these 

determinations will provide additional 

emissions reductions and result in 

visibility improvement, which gives 

further assurances that West Virginia 

will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be 

conservative, West Virginia opted not to 

rely on any additional emission 

reductions from sources located outside 

the State’s boundaries beyond those 

already identified in the State’s regional 

haze SIP submittal. 

West Virginia received letters from 

the MANE–VU RPO States of Maine, 

New Jersey, New Hampshire, and 

Vermont in the spring of 2007, stating 

that based on MANE–VU’s analysis of 

2002 emissions data, West Virginia 

contributed to visibility impairment to 

Class I areas in those states. The MANE– 

VU states identified thirteen EGU stacks 

in West Virginia that they would like to 

see controlled to 90 percent efficiency. 

They also requested a control strategy to 

provide a 28 percent reduction in SO2

emissions from sources other than EGUs 

that would be equivalent to MANE– 

VU’s proposed low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy. All thirteen of the EGU stacks 

identified by MANE–VU will be 

controlled by 2018, and thirteen of the 

units will be controlled with a 95 

percent efficiency, resulting in an 

additional 73,015 tons of SO2 reductions 

beyond those requested by MANE–VU. 

West Virginia’s non-EGUs are predicted 

to emit 61,704 tons of SO2 in 2018. 

MANE–VU’s request of 28 percent 

reduction would be 17,277 tons of SO2. 

The additional 91,864 tons of SO2

reductions achieved by the installation 

and operation of more efficient controls 

on EGUs and the shutdown of 

additional EGUs, will achieve greater 

reductions than the 28 percent 

reduction requested by MANE–VU. 

These reductions satisfy MANE–VU’s 

request. EPA finds that West Virginia 

has adequately addressed the 

consultation requirements in the RHR 

and appropriately documented its 

consultation with other states in its SIP 

submittal. 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

Through the VISTAS RPO, West 

Virginia and the nine other member 

states worked extensively with the 

FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the 

Interior and Agriculture to develop 

technical analyses that support the 

regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS 

states. The proposed regional haze plan 

for West Virginia was submitted to the 

FLMs for review on September 21, 2007. 

West Virginia received comments from 

the FLMs on October 22, 2007. Since the 

comments were received prior to the 

start of the public hearing, the WVDEP 

was able to incorporate some of the 

suggested changes in the public review 

document. The public comment period 

was from October 26, 2007 to November 

27, 2007. However, due to the short time 

frame not all comments could be 

addressed prior to the start of the public 

comment period, but were addressed in 

a separate document titled ‘‘Federal 

Land Manager Consultation.’’ WVDEP 

reopened the public comment period for 

two specific portions of the proposed 

SIP. The two specific parts of the 

Regional Haze SIP were a revised BART 

determination and the FLM 

conclusions/recommendations and DEP 

responses. To address the requirement 

for continuing consultation procedures 

with the FLMs under 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(4), WVDEP made a 

commitment in the SIP to ongoing 

consultation with the FLMs on regional 

haze issues throughout implementation 

of its plan, including annual 

discussions. WVDEP also affirms in the 

SIP that FLM consultation is required 

for those sources subject to the State’s 

NSR regulations. 

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

Consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(g), 

WVDEP affirmed its commitment to 

submitting a progress report in the form 

of a SIP revision to EPA every five years 

following this initial submittal of the 

West Virginia regional haze SIP. The 

report will evaluate the progress made 

towards the RPGs for each mandatory 

Class I area located within West Virginia 

and in each mandatory Class I area 

located outside West Virginia which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within West Virginia. West Virginia also 

offered recommendations for several 

technical improvements that, as funding 

allows, can support the State’s next 

LTS. 

If another state’s regional haze SIP 

identifies that West Virginia’s SIP needs 

to be supplemented or modified, and if, 

after appropriate consultation West 

Virginia agrees, today’s action may be 

revisited, or additional information and/ 

or changes will be addressed in the fiveyear progress report SIP revision. 

VI. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

and a limited disapproval of a revision 

to the West Virginia SIP submitted by 

the State of West Virginia on June 18, 

2008, as meeting some of the applicable 

regional haze requirements as set forth 

in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA 

and in 40 CFR 51.300–308, as described 

previously in this action. EPA is also 

proposing to find that this revision 

meets the applicable visibility related 

requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2) 

including, but not limited to 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), 

relating to visibility protection for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has 

determined that once the Regional Haze 

Plan submitted by the State of West 

Virginia is fully approved it will satisfy 

the requirements of the CAA. EPA is 

taking this action pursuant to those 

provisions of the CAA. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ 

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as a requirement for 

answers to * * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply to this action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41177 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

Federal SIP approval does not create 

any new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis 

would constitute Federal inquiry into 

the economic reasonableness of state 

action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the approval 

action proposed does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This Federal action 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the West Virginia 

Regional Haze SIP does not require the 

public to perform activities conducive 

to the use of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 6, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17664 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS