80 FR 12607 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 46 (March 10, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 46 (March 10, 2015)
| Page Range | 12607-12611 | |
| FR Document | 2015-05468 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 12607-12611] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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: [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12607
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Island on February 21, 2014. This comments. A detailed rationale for the
1999); revision includes a regulation adopted approval is set forth in the direct final
• Is not an economically significant by Rhode Island that establishes rule. If no adverse comments are
regulatory action based on health or procedures to follow for transportation received in response to this rule, no
safety risks subject to Executive Order conformity determinations. Conformity further activity is contemplated. If EPA
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); to the purpose of the SIP means that receives adverse comments, the direct
• Is not a significant regulatory action transportation activities will not cause final rule will be withdrawn and all
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR new air quality violations, worsen public comments received will be
28355, May 22, 2001); existing violations, or delay timely addressed in a subsequent final rule
• Is not subject to requirements of attainment of the national ambient air based on this proposed rule. EPA will
Section 12(d) of the National quality standards. The intended effect of not institute a second comment period.
Technology Transfer and Advancement this action is to propose to approve Any parties interested in commenting
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Rhode Island’s transportation on this action should do so at this time.
application of those requirements would conformity regulation into the Rhode Please note that if EPA receives adverse
be inconsistent with the CAA; and Island SIP. This action is being taken in comment on an amendment, paragraph,
• Does not provide EPA with the accordance with the Clean Air Act. or section of this rule and if that
discretionary authority to address, as DATES: Written comments must be provision may be severed from the
appropriate, disproportionate human received on or before April 9, 2015. remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
health or environmental effects, using ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, as final those provisions of the rule that
practicable and legally permissible identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– are not the subject of an adverse
methods, under Executive Order 12898 OAR–2014–0275 by one of the following comment.
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). methods: For additional information, see the
In addition, this proposed rule, 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the direct final rule which is located in the
pertaining to the update of the MVEBs, on-line instructions for submitting Rules Section of this Federal Register.
point and area source inventories, as comments. Dated: February 4, 2015.
well as the general conformity budgets 2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. Fax: H. Curtis Spalding,
for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre (617) 918–0047. Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Maintenance Area, does not have tribal 3. Mail: EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0275, [FR Doc. 2015–05259 Filed 3–9–15; 8:45 am]
implications as specified by Executive Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, Protection Agency, EPA New England
2000), because the SIP is not approved Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—
to apply in Indian country located in the Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
state, and EPA notes that it will not MA 02109–3912. Hand Delivery or AGENCY
impose substantial direct costs on tribal Courier. Deliver your comments to:
governments or preempt tribal law. Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality 40 CFR Part 52
Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0423; FRL 9924–23–
Protection, U.S. Environmental Region 3]
Environmental protection, Air Protection Agency, EPA New England
pollution control, Incorporation by Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square— Approval and Promulgation of
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, Implementation Plans; West Virginia;
Volatile organic compounds. MA 02109–3912. Such deliveries are Regional Haze Five-Year Progress
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. only accepted during the Regional Report State Implementation Plan
Office’s normal hours of operation. The
Dated: February 20, 2015. Regional Office’s official hours of AGENCY: Environmental Protection
William C. Early, business are Monday through Friday, Agency (EPA).
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.
[FR Doc. 2015–05434 Filed 3–9–15; 08:45 am] holidays. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Please see the direct final rule which
Agency (EPA) is issuing a supplement to
is located in the Rules Section of this
its proposed approval of a State
Federal Register for detailed Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION instructions on how to submit submitted by the State of West Virginia
AGENCY comments. (West Virginia) through the West
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Virginia Department of Environmental
40 CFR Part 52
Anne Arnold, Air Quality Planning Protection (WVDEP). West Virginia’s
[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0275; A–1–FRL– Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection SIP revision addresses requirements of
9924–18–Region 1] Agency, EPA New England Regional the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s
Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, rules that require states to submit
Approval and Promulgation of Air (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, MA periodic reports describing progress
Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode 02109–3912, telephone number (617) towards reasonable progress goals
Island; Transportation Conformity 918–1047, fax number (617) 918–1047, established for regional haze and a
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection email arnold.anne@epa.gov. determination of the adequacy of the
Agency. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the state’s existing implementation plan
ACTION: Proposed rule. Final Rules Section of this Federal addressing regional haze (regional haze
Register, EPA is approving the State’s SIP). EPA’s proposed approval of West
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection SIP submittal as a direct final rule Virginia’s periodic report on progress
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a without prior proposal because the towards reasonable progress goals and
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Agency views this as a noncontroversial determination of adequacy of the state’s
revision submitted by the State of Rhode submittal and anticipates no adverse regional haze SIP was published in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM 10MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_12653/page/1.svg)
![12610 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2520(c). Therefore, EPA does not believe the remanded Implementation Plan.’’ 40 CFR 51.301.
West Virginia appropriately evaluated status of CAIR or the imminent EPA is, therefore, proposing to
and relied on CAIR reductions to implementation of its replacement determine that we may consider
demonstrate the State’s progress CSAPR at this time impacts the measures in any issued FIP as well as
towards meeting its reasonable progress adequacy of the West Virginia regional those in a state’s regional haze SIP in
goals.6 haze SIP to address reasonable progress assessing the adequacy of the ‘‘existing
The State’s progress report also from 2008 through 2013 or even through implementation plan’’ under 40 CFR
demonstrated Class I areas in other 2014 or to meet requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h). Because CSAPR
states impacted by West Virginia 51.308(g) and (h) because CAIR was will ensure the control of SO2 and NOX
sources were on track to meet their implemented during the time period emissions reductions relied upon by
reasonable progress goals as discussed evaluated by West Virginia for its West Virginia and other states in setting
in the NPR. EPA’s intention in requiring progress report. See generally 77 FR their reasonable progress goals
the progress reports pursuant to 40 CFR 73369, 73371 (December 10, 2012)
51.308(g) was to ensure that emission beginning in January 2015 at least
(proposed action on Florida haze SIP).
management measures in the regional EPA’s December 3, 2014 interim final through the remainder of the first
haze SIPs are being implemented on rule sunsets CAIR compliance implementation period in 2018, EPA is
schedule and that visibility requirements on a schedule coordinated proposing to approve West Virginia’s
improvement appears to be consistent with the implementation of CSAPR finding that there is no need for revision
with the reasonable progress goals. 64 compliance requirements. 79 FR at of the existing implementation plan for
FR 35713, 35747 (July 1, 1999). As the 71665. As noted above, EPA’s June 7, West Virginia to achieve the reasonable
D.C. Circuit only recently lifted the stay 2012 FIP replaced West Virginia’s progress goals for the Class I areas in
on CSAPR, CAIR was in effect in West reliance upon CAIR for regional haze West Virginia and in nearby states
Virginia through 2014, providing the requirements with reliance on CSAPR to impacted by West Virginia sources.
emission reductions relied upon in West meet those requirements for the long- We note that the Regional Haze Rule
Virginia’s regional haze SIP. Thus, West term. Because CSAPR should result in provides for periodic evaluation and
Virginia appropriately took into account greater emissions reductions of SO2 and assessment of a state’s reasonable
CAIR reductions in assessing the NOX than CAIR throughout the affected progress towards achieving the national
implementation of measures in the region including in West Virginia and goal of natural visibility conditions by
regional haze SIP for the 2008–2013 neighboring states, EPA expects West 2064 for CAA section 169A(b). The
timeframe, and EPA believes that it is Virginia to maintain and continue its
regional haze regulations at 40 CFR
appropriate to rely on CAIR emission progress towards its reasonable progress
51.308 required states to submit initial
reductions for purposes of assessing the goals for 2018 through continued, and
adequacy of West Virginia’s progress additional, SO2 and NOX reductions. SIPs in 2007 providing for reasonable
report demonstrating progress up to the See generally 76 FR 48208 progress towards the national goal for
end of 2014 as CAIR remained effective (promulgating CSAPR). Although the the first implementation period from
until that date, pursuant to 40 CFR implementation of CSAPR was tolled for 2008 through 2018. 40 CFR 51.308(b).
51.308(g) and (h). three years, the Rule is now being Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f), SIP
In addition, EPA also believes implemented, and by 2018, the end of revisions reassessing each state’s
reliance upon CAIR reductions to show the first regional haze implementation reasonable progress towards the
West Virginia’s progress towards period, CSAPR will reduce emissions of national goal are due every ten years
meeting its RPGs from 2008–2013 is SO2 and NOX from EGUS in West after that time. For such subsequent
consistent with our prior actions. Virginia by the same amount assumed regional haze SIPs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)
During the continued implementation of by EPA when it issued the CSAPR FIP requires each state to reassess its
CAIR per the direction of the D.C. for West Virginia in June 2012. See 76 reasonable progress and all the elements
Circuit through October 2014, EPA has FR 48208 (CSAPR promulgation) and 77 of its regional haze SIP required by 40
approved redesignations of areas to FR 33642 (limited disapproval of West CFR 51.308(d), taking into account
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in Virginia regional haze SIP and FIP for improvements in monitors and control
which states relied on CAIR as an West Virginia for certain regional haze technology, assessing the state’s actual
‘‘enforceable measure.’’ See 77 FR 76415 requirements). See February 11, 2015 progress and effectiveness of its long
(December 28, 2012) (redesignation of Memorandum to File in Support of the term strategy, and revising reasonable
Huntingdon-Ashland, West Virginia); 78 Proposed Approval of West Virginia’s progress goals as necessary. 40 CFR
FR 59841 (September 30, 2013) Regional Haze Progress Report, which is 51.308(f)(1)–(3). Therefore, West
(redesignation of Wheeling, West available in the docket for this Virginia has the opportunity to reassess
Virginia); and 78 FR 56168 (September rulemaking action and available online its reasonable progress goals and the
12, 2013) (redesignation of Parkersburg, at www.regulations.gov. adequacy of its regional haze SIP,
West Virginia). While EPA did At the present time, the requirements including its reliance upon CAIR and
previously state in a rulemaking action of CSAPR apply to sources in West
CSAPR for emission reductions from
on the Florida regional haze SIP that a Virginia under the terms of a FIP,
EGUs, when it prepares and submits its
five year progress report may be the because West Virginia to date has not
second regional haze SIP to cover the
appropriate time to address changes, if incorporated the CSAPR requirements
into its SIP. The Regional Haze Rule implementation period from 2018
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
necessary, for reasonable progress goal through 2028. As discussed in the NPR
demonstrations and long term strategies, requires an assessment of whether the
current ‘‘implementation plan’’ is and in West Virginia’s progress report,
6 EPA discussed in the NPR the significance of sufficient to enable the states to meet all emissions of SO2 from EGUs are far
reductions in SO2 as West Virginia and the established reasonable progress goals. below original projections for 2018. In
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). The term addition, the visibility data provided by
of the Southeast (VISTAS) identified SO2 as the West Virginia show the Class I areas
largest contributor pollutant to visibility
‘‘implementation plan’’ is defined for
impairment in West Virginia specifically and in the purposes of the Regional Haze Rule to impacted by West Virginia sources are
VISTAS region generally. mean ‘‘any [SIP], [FIP], or Tribal all currently on track to achieve their
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM 10MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_12653/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12611
reasonable progress goals.7 EPA is V. Statutory and Executive Order substantial direct costs on tribal
seeking comment only on the issues Reviews governments or preempt tribal law.
raised in this supplemental proposal Under the CAA, the Administrator is List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52
and is not reopening for comment other required to approve a SIP submission
issues addressed in its prior proposal. Environmental protection, Air
that complies with the provisions of the
pollution control, Incorporation by
IV. Summary of Reproposal CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
In summary, EPA proposes to approve Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter,
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
West Virginia’s progress report SIP Reporting and recordkeeping
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
revision submitted on April 30, 2013. requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
provided that they meet the criteria of
EPA solicits comments on this organic compounds.
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
supplemental proposal, but only with merely proposes to approve state law as Dated: March 2, 2015.
respect to the specific issues raised in meeting Federal requirements and does William C. Early,
this notice concerning our interpretation not impose additional requirements Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
of the term ‘‘implementation plan’’ in beyond those imposed by state law. For [FR Doc. 2015–05468 Filed 3–9–15; 8:45 am]
the Regional Haze Rule, and our that reason, this proposed action: BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
agreement with West Virginia’s • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
assessment that the current regional action’’ subject to review by the Office
haze SIP for West Virginia in of Management and Budget under DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
combination with our CSAPR FIP need Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
not be revised at this time to achieve the October 4, 1993); National Oceanic and Atmospheric
established reasonable progress goals for • Does not impose an information Administration
West Virginia and other nearby states in collection burden under the provisions
light of the status of CAIR through 2014 of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 50 CFR Part 660
and CSAPR starting in 2015. EPA is not U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
reopening the comment period on any • Is certified as not having a [Docket No. 141219999–5174–01]
other aspect of the March 14, 2014 NPR significant economic impact on a RIN 0648–BE74
as an adequate opportunity to comment substantial number of small entities
on those issues has already been under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
provided. The purpose of this U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Fisheries off West Coast States;
supplemental proposal is limited to • Does not contain any unfunded Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015
review of the West Virginia progress mandate or significantly or uniquely Tribal Fishery for Pacific Whiting
report in light of the Supreme Court’s affect small governments, as described
decision in EME Homer City and the in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
D.C. Circuit’s recent Order lifting the of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
stay on CSAPR. This supplemental • Does not have Federalism Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
proposal reflects EPA’s desire for public implications as specified in Executive Commerce.
input into how it should proceed in Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
light of those decisions when acting on 1999); comments.
the pending progress report, in • Is not an economically significant
particular the requirements that the SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed
regulatory action based on health or
State assess whether the current rule for the 2015 Pacific whiting fishery
safety risks subject to Executive Order
implementation plan is sufficient to under the authority of the Pacific Coast
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
ensure that reasonable progress goals are • Is not a significant regulatory action Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
met. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h).8 subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR (FMP), the Magnuson Stevens Fishery
28355, May 22, 2001); Conservation and Management Act
7 Many coal-fired EGUs have announced plans to • Is not subject to requirements of (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the Pacific
deactivate by April 2015 including several plants in Section 12(d) of the National Whiting Act of 2006. This proposed rule
West Virginia, including Albright, Kammer, Technology Transfer and Advancement would allocate 17.5% of the U.S. Total
Kanawha River, Phillip Sporn and Rivesville, as
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Allowable Catch of Pacific whiting for
well as plants or individual units at plants in states 2015 to Pacific Coast Indian tribes that
neighboring West Virginia including Glen Lynn, this action does not involve technical
Walter C. Beckjord, Muskingum River, Elrama, standards; and have a Treaty right to harvest
Clinch River, Eastlake, Ashtabula, and Big Sandy. • Does not provide EPA with the groundfish, and would revise the
Additional SO2 reductions will likely result from
discretionary authority to address, as regulation authorizing NMFS to
the deactivations of these coal-fired EGUs. For a reapportion unused allocation from the
listing of EGUs planning to deactivate in the states appropriate, disproportionate human
which are part of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., a health or environmental effects, using tribal allocation to the non-tribal sectors
regional transmission organization which practicable and legally permissible earlier in the fishing season.
coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
within states including West Virginia, see http:// methods, under Executive Order 12898
www.pjm.com/planning/generation-deactivation/ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). must be received no later than April 9,
gd-summaries.aspx. In addition, this supplemental 2015.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8 EPA previously determined that CSAPR (like
proposed rule pertaining to West ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
CAIR before it) was ‘‘better than BART’’ because it
would achieve greater reasonable progress toward
Virginia’s regional haze progress report on this document, identified by NOAA–
the national goal than would source-specific BART. does not have tribal implications as NMFS–2015–0017, by any of the
77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). EPA is not taking specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 following methods:
comment in this supplemental proposal on whether FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because • Electronic Submission: Submit all
the West Virginia implementation plan meets the
BART requirements or whether CSAPR is an
the SIP is not approved to apply in electronic public comments via the
alternative measure to source-specific BART in Indian country located in the state, and Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
accordance with 40 CFR 52.301(e)(2). EPA notes that it will not impose www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM 10MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_12653/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-21 09:34:56
Document Modified: 2018-02-21 09:34:56
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule; supplemental. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2015. | |
| Contact | Asrah Khadr, (215) 814-2071, or by email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 12607 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Oxides; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR