```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12607-12611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05468]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0423; FRL 9924-23-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; West Virginia; 
Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a 
supplement to its proposed approval of a State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia (West Virginia) 
through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 
(WVDEP). West Virginia's SIP revision addresses requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to submit 
periodic reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals 
established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of 
the state's existing implementation plan addressing regional haze 
(regional haze SIP). EPA's proposed approval of West Virginia's 
periodic report on progress towards reasonable progress goals and 
determination of adequacy of the state's regional haze SIP was 
published in the

[[Page 12608]]

Federal Register on March 14, 2014. This supplemental proposal 
addresses the potential effects on our proposed approval from the April 
29, 2014 decision of the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) 
remanding to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 
(CSAPR) for further proceedings and the D.C. Circuit's decision to lift 
the stay of CSAPR.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2013-0423, by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Email: powers.marilyn@epa.gov.
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0652, Marilyn Powers, Acting Associate 
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0423. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online 
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulation.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of West Virginia's 
submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of 
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., 
Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Asrah Khadr, (215) 814-2071, or by 
email at khadr.asrah@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA previously proposed to approve a SIP revision by West Virginia 
reporting on progress made in the first implementation period towards 
meeting the reasonable progress goals for Class I areas in and outside 
West Virginia that are affected by emissions from West Virginia's 
sources.\1\ 79 FR 14460 (March 14, 2014). This progress report SIP and 
accompanying cover letter also included a determination that West 
Virginia's existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision 
to achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement and 
emissions reduction goals for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ West Virginia has two Class I areas within its borders: 
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area (Dolly Sods) and Otter Creek Wilderness 
Area (Otter Creek). West Virginia states in the progress report SIP 
that West Virginia sources were also identified, through an area of 
influence modeling analysis based on back trajectories, as 
potentially impacting six Class I areas in five neighboring states: 
Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey; Great Smoky Mountains National 
Park in North Carolina and Tennessee; James River Face in Virginia; 
Linville Gorge in North Carolina; Mammath Cave National Park in 
Kentucky; and Shenandoah National Park in Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a 
SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the 
reasonable progress goals for each mandatory Class I area within the 
state and in each mandatory Class I area outside the state which may be 
affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In 
addition, the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to 
submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a 
determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze 
SIP. The first progress report SIP revision is due five years after 
submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. WVDEP submitted its 
regional haze SIP on June 18, 2008 and submitted its progress report 
SIP revision on April 30, 2013. EPA proposed to find that the progress 
report SIP revision satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 
(h) in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published in 2014. 79 FR 
14460. This notice supplements EPA's prior NPR by more fully explaining 
and soliciting comment on the basis for our proposed approval.

II. Summary of West Virginia's Progress Report SIP Revision and the NPR

    On April 30, 2013, West Virginia submitted a SIP revision 
describing the progress made towards the reasonable progress goals of 
Class I areas in and outside West Virginia that are affected by 
emissions from West Virginia's sources, in accordance with requirements 
in the Regional Haze Rule.\2\ This progress report SIP also included an 
assessment of whether West Virginia's existing regional haze SIP is 
sufficient to allow it and other nearby states with Class I areas to 
achieve the reasonable progress goals by the end of the first planning 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 
1999 (64 FR 35713) known as the Regional Haze Rule. The Regional 
Haze Rule revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate 
into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment 
and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for 
Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) require a progress report SIP to 
address seven elements. In the NPR, EPA proposed to approve the SIP as 
adequately addressing each element under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The seven 
elements and EPA's proposed conclusions in the NPR are briefly 
summarized below.
    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) require progress report SIPs to 
include a description of the status of measures in the regional haze 
implementation plan; a summary of the emissions reductions achieved; an 
assessment of the visibility conditions for each Class

[[Page 12609]]

I area in the state; an analysis of the changes in emissions from 
sources and activities within the state; an assessment of any 
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the 
state that have limited or impeded visibility improvement progress in 
Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; an assessment of the 
sufficiency of the regional haze implementation plan to enable States 
to meet reasonable progress goals; and a review of the state's 
visibility monitoring strategy. As explained in detail in the NPR, EPA 
proposed that West Virginia's progress report SIP addressed each 
element and therefore satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR 
51.308(g).
    In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to 
submit, at the same time as the progress report SIP revision, a 
determination of the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and 
to take one of four possible actions based on information in the 
progress report. In its progress report SIP, West Virginia determined 
that its regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable it and nearby states 
to achieve the reasonable progress goals for Class I areas affected by 
West Virginia's sources. The State accordingly provided EPA with a 
negative declaration that further revision of the existing regional 
haze implementation plan was not needed at this time. See 40 CFR 
51.308(h)(1). As explained in detail in the NPR, EPA proposed to 
determine that West Virginia had adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) 
because the visibility data trends at the Class I areas impacted by 
West Virginia's sources and the emissions trends of the largest 
emitters of visibility-impairing pollutants both indicate that the 
reasonable progress goals for 2018 for these areas will be met or 
exceeded. Therefore, in our NPR, EPA proposed to approve West 
Virginia's progress report SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(g) and (h).

III. Impact of CAIR and CSAPR on West Virginia's Progress Report

    Decisions by the Courts regarding EPA rules addressing the 
interstate transport of pollutants have had a substantial impact on 
EPA's review of the regional haze SIPs of many states. In 2005, EPA 
issued regulations allowing states to rely on the Clean Air Interstate 
Rule (CAIR) to meet certain requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. See 
70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).\3\ A number of states, including West 
Virginia, submitted regional haze SIPs consistent with these regulatory 
provisions. CAIR, however, was remanded to EPA in 2008, North Carolina 
v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008), and replaced by CSAPR.\4\ 
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to 
begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR 
program. However, numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, 
and at the end of 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR 
pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to 
administer CAIR. Order of Dec. 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation, 
L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAIR required certain states like West Virginia to reduce 
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) that significantly contribute to downwind 
nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone. 
See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
    \4\ CSAPR was issued by EPA to replace CAIR and to help states 
reduce air pollution and attain CAA standards. See 76 FR 48208 
(August 8, 2011) (final rule). CSAPR requires substantial reductions 
of SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 
states in the Eastern United States that significantly contribute to 
downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS 
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of West 
Virginia's regional haze SIP on March 23, 2012, 77 FR 16937, and issued 
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) shortly thereafter to address the 
deficiencies identified in our limited disapproval of West Virginia and 
other states' regional haze plans. 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). In our 
FIP, we relied on CSAPR to meet certain regional haze requirements 
notwithstanding that it was stayed at the time. As we explained, the 
determination that CSAPR will provide for greater reasonable progress 
than BART is based on a forward looking projection of emissions and any 
year up until 2018 would have been an acceptable point of comparison. 
Id. at 33647. When we issued this FIP, we anticipated that the 
requirements of CSAPR would be implemented prior to 2018. Id. Following 
these EPA actions, however, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in EME 
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 
vacating CSAPR and ordering EPA to continue administering CAIR pending 
the promulgation of a valid replacement. On April 29, 2014, the Supreme 
Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision on CSAPR and remanded the 
case to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). After the Supreme Court 
decision, EPA filed a motion to lift the stay on CSAPR and asked the 
D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years, so 
that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 
2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 and 
beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. 
Circuit granted EPA's motion. Order of October 23, 2014, in EME Homer 
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302. EPA issued an 
interim final rule to clarify how EPA will implement CSAPR consistent 
with the D.C. Circuit's order granting EPA's motion requesting lifting 
the stay and tolling the rule's deadlines. 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 
2014) (interim final rulemaking).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Subsequent to the interim final rulemaking, EPA began 
implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Throughout the litigation described above, EPA has continued to 
implement CAIR. Thus, at the time that West Virginia submitted its 
progress report SIP revision, CAIR was in effect, and the State 
included an assessment of the emission reductions from the 
implementation of CAIR in its report. The progress report discussed the 
status of the litigation concerning CAIR and CSAPR, but because CSAPR 
was not at that time in effect, West Virginia did not take emissions 
reductions from CSAPR into account in assessing its regional haze 
implementation plan. For the same reason, in our NPR, EPA did not 
assess at that time the impact of CSAPR or our FIP on the ability of 
West Virginia and its neighbors to meet their reasonable progress 
goals.
    The purpose of this supplemental proposal is to seek comment on the 
effect of the D.C. Circuit's October 23, 2014 order and the effect of 
the status of CAIR and CSAPR on our assessment of West Virginia's 
progress report SIP and its determination that its existing 
implementation plan need not be revised at this time.
    Given the complex background summarized above, EPA is proposing to 
determine that West Virginia appropriately took CAIR into account in 
its progress report SIP in describing the status of the implementation 
of measures included in its regional haze SIP and in summarizing the 
emissions reductions achieved. CAIR was in effect during the 2008-2013 
period addressed by West Virginia's progress report. EPA approved West 
Virginia's regulations implementing CAIR as part of the West Virginia 
SIP in 2009, 74 FR 38536 (August 4, 2009), and neither West Virginia 
nor EPA has taken any action to remove CAIR from the West Virginia

[[Page 12610]]

SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2520(c). Therefore, West Virginia appropriately 
evaluated and relied on CAIR reductions to demonstrate the State's 
progress towards meeting its reasonable progress goals.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA discussed in the NPR the significance of reductions in 
SO2 as West Virginia and the Visibility Improvement State 
and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) identified 
SO2 as the largest contributor pollutant to visibility 
impairment in West Virginia specifically and in the VISTAS region 
generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's progress report also demonstrated Class I areas in 
other states impacted by West Virginia sources were on track to meet 
their reasonable progress goals as discussed in the NPR. EPA's 
intention in requiring the progress reports pursuant to 40 CFR 
51.308(g) was to ensure that emission management measures in the 
regional haze SIPs are being implemented on schedule and that 
visibility improvement appears to be consistent with the reasonable 
progress goals. 64 FR 35713, 35747 (July 1, 1999). As the D.C. Circuit 
only recently lifted the stay on CSAPR, CAIR was in effect in West 
Virginia through 2014, providing the emission reductions relied upon in 
West Virginia's regional haze SIP. Thus, West Virginia appropriately 
took into account CAIR reductions in assessing the implementation of 
measures in the regional haze SIP for the 2008-2013 timeframe, and EPA 
believes that it is appropriate to rely on CAIR emission reductions for 
purposes of assessing the adequacy of West Virginia's progress report 
demonstrating progress up to the end of 2014 as CAIR remained effective 
until that date, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
    In addition, EPA also believes reliance upon CAIR reductions to 
show West Virginia's progress towards meeting its RPGs from 2008-2013 
is consistent with our prior actions. During the continued 
implementation of CAIR per the direction of the D.C. Circuit through 
October 2014, EPA has approved redesignations of areas to attainment of 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in which states relied on CAIR as an 
``enforceable measure.'' See 77 FR 76415 (December 28, 2012) 
(redesignation of Huntingdon-Ashland, West Virginia); 78 FR 59841 
(September 30, 2013) (redesignation of Wheeling, West Virginia); and 78 
FR 56168 (September 12, 2013) (redesignation of Parkersburg, West 
Virginia). While EPA did previously state in a rulemaking action on the 
Florida regional haze SIP that a five year progress report may be the 
appropriate time to address changes, if necessary, for reasonable 
progress goal demonstrations and long term strategies, EPA does not 
believe the remanded status of CAIR or the imminent implementation of 
its replacement CSAPR at this time impacts the adequacy of the West 
Virginia regional haze SIP to address reasonable progress from 2008 
through 2013 or even through 2014 or to meet requirements in 40 CFR 
51.308(g) and (h) because CAIR was implemented during the time period 
evaluated by West Virginia for its progress report. See generally 77 FR 
73369, 73371 (December 10, 2012) (proposed action on Florida haze SIP).
    EPA's December 3, 2014 interim final rule sunsets CAIR compliance 
requirements on a schedule coordinated with the implementation of CSAPR 
compliance requirements. 79 FR at 71665. As noted above, EPA's June 7, 
2012 FIP replaced West Virginia's reliance upon CAIR for regional haze 
requirements with reliance on CSAPR to meet those requirements for the 
long-term. Because CSAPR should result in greater emissions reductions 
of SO2 and NOX than CAIR throughout the affected 
region including in West Virginia and neighboring states, EPA expects 
West Virginia to maintain and continue its progress towards its 
reasonable progress goals for 2018 through continued, and additional, 
SO2 and NOX reductions. See generally 76 FR 48208 
(promulgating CSAPR). Although the implementation of CSAPR was tolled 
for three years, the Rule is now being implemented, and by 2018, the 
end of the first regional haze implementation period, CSAPR will reduce 
emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUS in West 
Virginia by the same amount assumed by EPA when it issued the CSAPR FIP 
for West Virginia in June 2012. See 76 FR 48208 (CSAPR promulgation) 
and 77 FR 33642 (limited disapproval of West Virginia regional haze SIP 
and FIP for West Virginia for certain regional haze requirements). See 
February 11, 2015 Memorandum to File in Support of the Proposed 
Approval of West Virginia's Regional Haze Progress Report, which is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking action and available online 
at www.regulations.gov.
    At the present time, the requirements of CSAPR apply to sources in 
West Virginia under the terms of a FIP, because West Virginia to date 
has not incorporated the CSAPR requirements into its SIP. The Regional 
Haze Rule requires an assessment of whether the current 
``implementation plan'' is sufficient to enable the states to meet all 
established reasonable progress goals. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). The term 
``implementation plan'' is defined for purposes of the Regional Haze 
Rule to mean ``any [SIP], [FIP], or Tribal Implementation Plan.'' 40 
CFR 51.301. EPA is, therefore, proposing to determine that we may 
consider measures in any issued FIP as well as those in a state's 
regional haze SIP in assessing the adequacy of the ``existing 
implementation plan'' under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h). Because CSAPR 
will ensure the control of SO2 and NOX emissions 
reductions relied upon by West Virginia and other states in setting 
their reasonable progress goals beginning in January 2015 at least 
through the remainder of the first implementation period in 2018, EPA 
is proposing to approve West Virginia's finding that there is no need 
for revision of the existing implementation plan for West Virginia to 
achieve the reasonable progress goals for the Class I areas in West 
Virginia and in nearby states impacted by West Virginia sources.
    We note that the Regional Haze Rule provides for periodic 
evaluation and assessment of a state's reasonable progress towards 
achieving the national goal of natural visibility conditions by 2064 
for CAA section 169A(b). The regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 
required states to submit initial SIPs in 2007 providing for reasonable 
progress towards the national goal for the first implementation period 
from 2008 through 2018. 40 CFR 51.308(b). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f), 
SIP revisions reassessing each state's reasonable progress towards the 
national goal are due every ten years after that time. For such 
subsequent regional haze SIPs, 40 CFR 51.308(f) requires each state to 
reassess its reasonable progress and all the elements of its regional 
haze SIP required by 40 CFR 51.308(d), taking into account improvements 
in monitors and control technology, assessing the state's actual 
progress and effectiveness of its long term strategy, and revising 
reasonable progress goals as necessary. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)-(3). 
Therefore, West Virginia has the opportunity to reassess its reasonable 
progress goals and the adequacy of its regional haze SIP, including its 
reliance upon CAIR and CSAPR for emission reductions from EGUs, when it 
prepares and submits its second regional haze SIP to cover the 
implementation period from 2018 through 2028. As discussed in the NPR 
and in West Virginia's progress report, emissions of SO2 
from EGUs are far below original projections for 2018. In addition, the 
visibility data provided by West Virginia show the Class I areas 
impacted by West Virginia sources are all currently on track to achieve 
their

[[Page 12611]]

reasonable progress goals.\7\ EPA is seeking comment only on the issues 
raised in this supplemental proposal and is not reopening for comment 
other issues addressed in its prior proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Many coal-fired EGUs have announced plans to deactivate by 
April 2015 including several plants in West Virginia, including 
Albright, Kammer, Kanawha River, Phillip Sporn and Rivesville, as 
well as plants or individual units at plants in states neighboring 
West Virginia including Glen Lynn, Walter C. Beckjord, Muskingum 
River, Elrama, Clinch River, Eastlake, Ashtabula, and Big Sandy. 
Additional SO2 reductions will likely result from the 
deactivations of these coal-fired EGUs. For a listing of EGUs 
planning to deactivate in the states which are part of PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C., a regional transmission organization which 
coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity within states 
including West Virginia, see http://www.pjm.com/planning/generation-deactivation/gd-summaries.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary of Reproposal

    In summary, EPA proposes to approve West Virginia's progress report 
SIP revision submitted on April 30, 2013. EPA solicits comments on this 
supplemental proposal, but only with respect to the specific issues 
raised in this notice concerning our interpretation of the term 
``implementation plan'' in the Regional Haze Rule, and our agreement 
with West Virginia's assessment that the current regional haze SIP for 
West Virginia in combination with our CSAPR FIP need not be revised at 
this time to achieve the established reasonable progress goals for West 
Virginia and other nearby states in light of the status of CAIR through 
2014 and CSAPR starting in 2015. EPA is not reopening the comment 
period on any other aspect of the March 14, 2014 NPR as an adequate 
opportunity to comment on those issues has already been provided. The 
purpose of this supplemental proposal is limited to review of the West 
Virginia progress report in light of the Supreme Court's decision in 
EME Homer City and the D.C. Circuit's recent Order lifting the stay on 
CSAPR. This supplemental proposal reflects EPA's desire for public 
input into how it should proceed in light of those decisions when 
acting on the pending progress report, in particular the requirements 
that the State assess whether the current implementation plan is 
sufficient to ensure that reasonable progress goals are met. 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(6) and (h).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA previously determined that CSAPR (like CAIR before it) 
was ``better than BART'' because it would achieve greater reasonable 
progress toward the national goal than would source-specific BART. 
77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). EPA is not taking comment in this 
supplemental proposal on whether the West Virginia implementation 
plan meets the BART requirements or whether CSAPR is an alternative 
measure to source-specific BART in accordance with 40 CFR 
52.301(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52

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

    Dated: March 2, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-05468 Filed 3-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```