Proposed Rule2025-06608
Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 18, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the regional haze State implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by West Virginia (West Virginia, WV, or the State) on August 12, 2022, to address applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the regional haze program's second implementation period. The EPA is proposing this action pursuant to the CAA. The EPA is also withdrawing its previous proposed rule to disapprove West Virginia's regional haze SIP revision as published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2025.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 74 (Friday, April 18, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 74 (Friday, April 18, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16478-16490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-06608]
[[Page 16478]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2025-0174; FRL-12731-01-R3]
Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and withdrawal of proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the regional haze State implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by West Virginia (West Virginia, WV, or the State) on August
12, 2022, to address applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the regional haze
program's second implementation period. The EPA is proposing this
action pursuant to the CAA. The EPA is also withdrawing its previous
proposed rule to disapprove West Virginia's regional haze SIP revision
as published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2025.
DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received on or before May 19,
2025.
As of April 18, 2025, the proposed rule published on January 21,
2025, at 90 FR 6932, is withdrawn.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2025-0174, at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments submitted at
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Commenters who would like the EPA to consider any comments relevant to
this proposed rulemaking that they provided on the January 21, 2025
rulemaking proposing to disapprove West Virginia's regional haze SIP
submission must resubmit those comments to the EPA during this
proposal's comment period. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit <a href="http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Gordon, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2852, at (215) 814-2039, or by email
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dbbcb4a9bfb4b5f5b6b2b0be9bbeabbaf5bcb4ad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="27404855434849094a4e4c426742574609404851">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second
Implementation Period
IV. Withdrawal of Prior Proposed Disapproval
V. The EPA's Rationale for Proposing Approval
VI. The EPA's Evaluation of West Virginia's Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Planning Period
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
The EPA is proposing to approve West Virginia's regional haze SIP
revision for the second implementation period, also referred to as the
second planning period. As required by section 169A of the CAA, the RHR
calls for State and Federal agencies to work together to improve
visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas, known as
mandatory Class I Federal areas.\1\ The rule requires the States, in
coordination with the EPA, the National Park Service, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and other interested parties, to
develop and implement air quality protection plans to reduce the
pollution that causes visibility impairment in mandatory Class I
Federal areas. Based on our change in policy discussed in section V of
this document, the EPA proposes that West Virginia's regional haze SIP
meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for the regional haze
second planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A detailed history and background of the regional haze program is
provided in multiple prior EPA proposal actions.\2\ For additional
background on the 2017 RHR revisions, please refer to section III of
this document. Overview of Visibility Protection Statutory Authority,
Regulation, and Implementation of ``Protection of Visibility:
Amendments to Requirements for State Plans'' of the 2017 RHR.\3\ The
following is an abbreviated history and background of the regional haze
program and 2017 Regional Haze Rule as it applies to the current
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., 90 FR 13516 (March 24, 2025).
\3\ See 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017), located at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/10/2017-00268/protection-of-visibility-amendments-to-requirements-for-State-plans#h-16">www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/10/2017-00268/protection-of-visibility-amendments-to-requirements-for-State-plans#h-16</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Regional Haze
In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\4\ CAA
section 169A. The CAA establishes as a national goal the ``prevention
of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of
visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.'' CAA section 169A(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal
Areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA
162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I Areas. The list of areas to
which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply is
in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In CAA section 169A(a)(1), Congress established the national goal
of preventing any future and remedying any existing impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas that results from manmade
(anthropogenic) air pollution. The core component of a regional haze
SIP submission for the second planning period is a strategy that
addresses regional haze in each Class I area within the state's borders
and each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by
emissions originating from within the state, CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B),
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), and makes ``reasonable progress'' toward the
national goal based on consideration of the four statutory factors in
CAA section 169A(g)(1)--the costs of compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected
sources.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CAA section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities
[[Page 16479]]
which are located across a broad geographic area and that emit
pollutants that impair visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants
include fine and coarse PM (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g.,
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and, in some cases, VOC and
NH<INF>3</INF>). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine PM (PM<INF>2.5</INF>), which impairs visibility by scattering
and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the perception of
clarity and color, as well as visible distance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric used by the RHR. Under many circumstances, a
change in one deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be the
same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is
proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction of
light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to its being
scattered and absorbed as it passes through the atmosphere.
Atmospheric light extinction (bext.) is a metric used for expressing
visibility and is measured in inverse megameters (Mm-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address Regional Haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both states in
which Class I Areas are located and states ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I Area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment. CAA section 169A(b)(2); \7\ see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative Regional
Haze SIP revisions); 64 FR 35768 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for states to
submit plans addressing out-of-state Class I Areas by providing that
states must address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class
I Federal Area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR (82
FR 3078, January 10, 2017), that apply for the second and subsequent
implementation periods. The reasonable progress requirements as revised
in the 2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are
codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f).
B. West Virginia's Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation
Period
On August 12, 2022, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WV DEP) submitted a revision to the West Virginia SIP to
address regional haze for the second planning period. WV DEP made this
SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze
program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.
On January 21, 2025 (90 FR 6932), the EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing disapproval of West Virginia's
August 12, 2022, SIP submission as failing to satisfy the regional haze
requirements for the second planning period contained in the CAA and 40
CFR 51.308. As we will discuss later in this document, the EPA is
withdrawing the proposed disapproval of West Virginia's SIP submission.
The rulemaking docket for the now withdrawn action is available under
Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2024-0625 at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Implementation
Period
Under the CAA and the EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to
submit regional haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for
the second implementation period of the regional haze program by July
31, 2021. Each state's SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any
existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR
51.308(f) lays out the process by which states determine what
constitutes their long-term strategies, with the order of the
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) generally mirroring the
order of the steps in the reasonable progress analysis \8\ and
paragraphs (f)(4) through (6) containing additional, related
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that we were
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in 40 CFR 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' 82 FR 3091 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadly speaking, a state first must identify the Class I areas
within the state and determine the Class I areas outside the state in
which visibility may be affected by emissions from the state. These are
the Class I areas that must be addressed in the state's long-term
strategy. See 40 CFR 51.308(f) introductory text, (f)(2). For each
Class I area within its borders, a state must then calculate the
baseline (five-year average period of 2000-2004), current, and natural
visibility conditions (i.e., visibility conditions without
anthropogenic visibility impairment) for that area, as well as the
visibility improvement made to date and the ``uniform rate of
progress'' (URP).
The URP is the linear rate of progress needed to attain natural
visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of baseline visibility
conditions in 2004 and ending with natural conditions in 2064. This
linear interpolation is used as a tracking metric to help states assess
the amount of progress they are making towards the national visibility
goal over time in each Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each
state having a Class I area and/or emissions that may affect visibility
in a Class I area must then develop a long-term strategy that includes
the enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas.
A reasonable progress determination is based on applying the four
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility impairing
pollutants that the state has selected to assess for controls for the
second implementation period. Additionally, as further explained below,
the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five
``additional factors'' \9\ that states must consider in developing
their long-term strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state evaluates potential emission reduction measures for those
selected sources and determines which are necessary to make reasonable
progress. Those measures are then incorporated into the state's long-
term strategy. After a state has developed its long-term strategy, it
then establishes Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for each Class I area
within its borders by modeling the visibility impacts of all reasonable
progress controls at the end of the second implementation period, i.e.,
in 2028, as well as the impacts of other requirements of the CAA. The
RPGs include reasonable progress controls not only for sources in the
state in which the Class I area is located, but also for sources in
other states that contribute to visibility impairment in that area. The
RPGs are then compared to the baseline visibility conditions and the
URP to ensure that progress is being made towards the statutory goal of
preventing any future and remedying any existing anthropogenic
visibility impairment in Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and (3).
There are additional requirements in the rule, including Federal Land
Manager (FLM) consultation, that apply to all visibility protection
SIPs and SIP revisions. See e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(i).
In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f)
related
[[Page 16480]]
to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP revisions for the second
implementation period must address the requirements in Sec.
51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic reports describing
progress towards the RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements
for FLM consultation that apply to all visibility protection SIPs and
SIP revisions. See e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A state must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP
revisions to the EPA according to the requirements applicable to all
SIP revisions under the CAA and the EPA's regulations. See CAA section
169A(b)(2); CAA section 110(a). Upon approval by the EPA, a SIP is
enforceable by the Agency and the public under the CAA. If the EPA
finds that a state fails to make a required SIP revision, or if the EPA
finds that a state's SIP is incomplete or if it disapproves the SIP,
the Agency must promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP) that
satisfies the applicable requirements. CAA section 110(c)(1).
A. Identification of Class I Areas
The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a state to
determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders,
``may be affected'' by emissions from within the state. In the 1999
RHR, the EPA determined that all states contribute to visibility
impairment in at least one Class I area, 64 FR 35720-22, and explained
that the statute and regulations lay out an ``extremely low triggering
threshold'' for determining ``whether States should be required to
engage in air quality planning and analysis as a prerequisite to
determining the need for control of emissions from sources within their
State.'' Id. at 35721.
A state must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants from all sources within the state The determination of which
Class I areas may be affected by a state's emissions is subject to the
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ``document the technical
basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions
information, on which the State is relying to determine the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in
each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects.''
B. Calculation of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility Conditions;
Progress to Date; and Uniform Rate of Progress
As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second
implementation period is providing for reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in Sec.
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The
requirements of this section apply only to states having Class I areas
within their borders; the required calculations must be made for each
such Class I area. The EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance provides
recommendations to assist states in satisfying their obligations under
Sec. 51.308(f)(1); specifically, in developing information on
baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, and in making
optional adjustments to the URP to account for the impacts of
international anthropogenic emissions and prescribed fires. See 82 FR
3103-05.
The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of
days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions
for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for
the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or
current visibility conditions). The RHR provides that the relevant sets
of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20% clearest (the 20%
of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest values of the
deciview index) and 20% most impaired days (the 20% of monitored days
in a calendar year with the highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility
impairment). 40 CFR 51.301. A state must calculate visibility
conditions for both the 20% clearest and 20% most impaired days for the
baseline period of 2000-2004 and the most recent five-year period for
which visibility monitoring data are available (representing current
visibility conditions). 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). States must also
calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest and most
impaired days, by estimating the conditions that would exist on those
two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility impairment. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data, states must then calculate, for
each Class I area, the amount of progress made since the baseline
period (2000-2004) and how much improvement is left to achieve to reach
natural visibility conditions.
Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, states must
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the
URP--the amount of visibility improvement, measured in deciviews, that
would need to be achieved during each implementation period to achieve
natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064. The URP is used in
later steps of the reasonable progress analysis for informational
purposes and to provide a non-enforceable benchmark against which to
assess a Class I area's rate of visibility improvement. Additionally,
in the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA provided states the option of
proposing to adjust the endpoint of the URP to account for impacts of
anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or impacts of
certain types of wildland prescribed fires. These adjustments, which
must be approved by the EPA, are intended to avoid any perception that
states should compensate for impacts from international anthropogenic
sources and to give states the flexibility to determine that limiting
the use of wildland-prescribed fire is not necessary for reasonable
progress. 82 FR 3107 footnote 116.
The EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help
satisfy the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020
Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in Sec. 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides
updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a long-term
strategy that addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a
state's borders and each Class I area outside the state that may be
affected by emissions from the state. The long-term strategy ``must
include the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules,
and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as
determined pursuant to paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (iv). 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress that is ``reasonable progress'' is
based on applying the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1)
in an evaluation of potential control options for sources of visibility
impairing pollutants, which is referred to as a ``four-factor''
analysis. The outcome of that analysis is the emission reduction
measures that a particular source or group of sources needs to
implement to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress may be either new, additional
control measures for a source, or they may be the existing emission
reduction
[[Page 16481]]
measures that a source is already implementing. See 82 FR 3078, 3092-
93. Such measures must be represented by ``enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures'' (i.e., any
additional compliance tools) in a state's long-term strategy in its
SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the four-
factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails selecting the
sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end,
the RHR requires states to consider ``major and minor stationary
sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources'' of
visibility impairing pollutants for potential four-factor control
analysis. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold question at this step is
which visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed.
While states have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a state's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.\10\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' CAA section 169A(g)(1). The EPA has explained that the
four-factor analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction
measures (i.e., control options) for sources: ``use of the terms
`compliance' and `subject to such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1)
strongly indicates that Congress intended the relevant determination to
be the requirements with which sources would have to comply to satisfy
the CAA's reasonable progress mandate.'' 82 FR 3091 (January 10, 2017).
Thus, for each source it has selected for four-factor analysis,\11\ a
state must consider a ``meaningful set'' of technically feasible
control options for reducing emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants. Id. at 3088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. CAA section 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to
four-factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or
source categories, a state may also consider additional emission
reduction measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g.,
from other newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and
measures for sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the
second implementation period.
\11\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' 82 FR
3088 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has also explained that, in addition to the four statutory
factors, states have flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably
consider visibility benefits as an additional factor alongside the four
statutory factors. Ultimately, while states have discretion to
reasonably weigh the factors and to determine what level of control is
needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a state ``must include in
its implementation plan a description of . . . how the four factors
were taken into consideration in selecting the measure for inclusion in
its long-term strategy.''
As explained above, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be
included in a state's long-term strategy and in its SIP. If the outcome
of a four-factor analysis is that an emissions reduction measure is
necessary to make reasonable progress towards remedying existing or
preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment, that measure
must be included in the SIP.
The characterization of information on each of the factors is also
subject to the documentation requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
The reasonable progress analysis is a technically complex exercise, and
also a flexible one, that provides states with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and
evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to
determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make
reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on
which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make
reasonable progress. Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)
separately provides five ``additional factors'' \12\ that states must
consider in developing their long-term strategies: (1) emission
reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including
measures to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (2)
measures to reduce the impacts of construction activities; (3) source
retirement and replacement schedules; (4) basic smoke management
practices for prescribed fire used for agricultural and wildland
vegetation management purposes and smoke management programs; and (5)
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by
the long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in 40
CFR51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state
boundaries, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area. If a
state, pursuant to consultation, agrees that certain measures (e.g., a
certain emission limitation) are necessary to make reasonable progress
at a Class I area, it must include those measures in its SIP. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A). Additionally, the RHR requires that states that
contribute to visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider
the emission reduction measures the other contributing states have
identified as being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own
sources. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a state has been asked to
consider or adopt certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately
determines those measures are not necessary to make reasonable
progress, that state must document in its SIP the actions taken to
resolve the disagreement. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). Under all
circumstances, a state must document in its SIP submission all
substantive
[[Page 16482]]
consultations with other contributing states. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
Reasonable progress goals ``measure the progress that is projected
to be achieved by the control measures states have determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor
analysis.'' 82 FR 3091 (January 10, 2017). For the second
implementation period, the RPGs are set for 2028. Reasonable progress
goals are not enforceable targets, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii). While
states are not legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions
described in their RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he
long-term strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for
an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the
baseline period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
clearest days since the baseline period.''
RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making towards the national visibility goal. To
support this approach, the RHR requires states with Class I areas to
compare the 2028 RPG for the most impaired days to the corresponding
point on the URP line (representing visibility conditions in 2028 if
visibility were to improve at a linear rate from conditions in the
baseline period of 2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064).
If the most impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP (i.e., if
visibility conditions are improving more slowly than the rate described
by the URP), each state that contributes to visibility impairment in
the Class I area must demonstrate, based on the four-factor analysis
required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional emission
reduction measures would be reasonable to include in its long-term
strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)
requires that each state contributing to visibility impairment in a
Class I area that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP
provide ``a robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria
used to determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated
and how the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken
into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-
term strategy.''
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this section apply either to states with Class I
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. Compliance with the monitoring strategy
requirement may be met through a state's participation in the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, which is used to measure visibility impairment
caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas covered by the
visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) introductory text, (f)(6)(i)
and (iv).
All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas, as well as a statewide inventory documenting
such emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii), and (v). All states'
SIPs must also provide for any other elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for states to
assess and report on visibility. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a
state's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether
such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility
improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), 82 FR 3119 (January
10, 2017). To this end, every state's SIP revision for the second
implementation period is required to assess changes in visibility
conditions and describe the status of implementation of all measures
included in the state's long-term strategy, including BART and
reasonable progress emission reduction measures from the first
implementation period, and the resulting emissions reductions. 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) and (2).
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
CAA section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a public
hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must consult with
the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that consultation, the state
must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. Consistent with this statutory requirement,
the RHR also requires that states ``provide the [FLM] with an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point early enough in
the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy emission
reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided
by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-
term strategy.'' 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). For the EPA to evaluate whether
FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has occurred, the
SIP submission should include documentation of the timing and content
of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to the EPA must also
describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. 40
CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision 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. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).
IV. Withdrawal of Prior Proposed Disapproval
On January 21, 2025 (90 FR 6932), the EPA proposed to disapprove
West Virginia's August 12, 2022, regional haze SIP submission in
accordance with sections 110 and 169A of the CAA. The action received
two submissions with comments opposing disapproval, and four
submissions with comments in support of disapproval. In this document,
we are withdrawing our January 21, 2025, proposed disapproval. We are
now reproposing as an approval based on a change in policy, as
discussed in section V of this document. Commenters who would like the
EPA to consider any comments submitted on the January 21, 2025, rule
proposal that are relevant to this proposed action must resubmit such
comments during the comment period for this proposed action.
V. The EPA's Rationale for Proposing Approval
The EPA is now proposing to approve West Virginia's submission
because we have determined that the West Virginia regional haze SIP
submittal for the
[[Page 16483]]
second planning period meets the applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements. After further evaluating the SIP submittal, as well as
the comments received during the comment period on our initial
proposal, the EPA agrees with West Virginia's determination that, for
the second planning period, no additional measures are necessary to
achieve reasonable progress towards natural visibility at Class I areas
impacted by emissions from West Virginia sources. The SIP submittal
included evaluations, including cost analyses, for six emissions
sources and a four-factor analysis conducted by Pleasants Power
Station. Based on these evaluations and analyses, the State determined
that no additional measures were necessary for reasonable progress. In
reaching this determination, West Virginia also considered historical
emissions data, existing control technologies on major sources, and the
large SO<INF>2</INF> reductions and visibility improvements that have
already occurred in the second planning period in West Virginia and
nearby Class I areas. Because the State assessed the potential for
additional measures, considered the four statutory factors, and the
projected 2028 visibility conditions for Class I areas influenced by
emissions from West Virginia sources are all below the uniform rate of
progress (URP), the EPA proposes that the SIP submittal meets the CAA
and regulatory requirement to make reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal.
In this action, the EPA is announcing that it is the Agency's new
policy that, where visibility conditions for a Class I area impacted by
a State are below the URP and the State has considered the four
statutory factors, the State will have presumptively demonstrated
reasonable progress for the second planning period for that area. The
EPA acknowledges that this proposed action reflects a change in policy
from current guidance as to how the URP should be used in the
evaluation of regional haze second planning period SIPs. However, the
EPA believes that this policy aligns with the purpose of the statute
and RHR, which is achieving ``reasonable'' progress, not maximal
progress, toward Congress' natural visibility goal. In addition,
certain commenters advocated for this policy during the public comment
period on our initial proposal including Monongahela Power Company (Mon
Power), the owner of two of the power plants selected for evaluation in
the SIP submittal.\13\ Consequently, this proposed action is a result
of the EPA's evaluation of the West Virginia SIP submittal and the
comments submitted during the public comment period on our initial
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See MonPower's February 20, 2025, comment letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the regulations required by CAA section 169A(b), the
EPA established the concept of the uniform rate of progress, or URP,
for each Class I area. The URP is determined by drawing a straight line
from the measured 2000-2004 baseline conditions (in deciviews) for the
20% most impaired days at each Class I area to the estimated 20% most
impaired days natural conditions (in deciviews) in 2064. From this
calculation, a URP value can be calculated for each year between 2004
and 2064. The URP was developed as a metric to address the diverse
concerns of Eastern and Western states and accounts for the varying
levels of visibility impairment in Class I areas around the country
while ensuring an equitable approach nationwide. For each Class I area,
there is a regulatory requirement to compare the projected visibility
impairment represented by the RPG at the end of each planning period to
the URP (e.g., in 2028 for the second planning period).\14\ 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi). If the projected RPG is above the URP, then an
additional ``robust demonstration'' requirement is triggered for each
state that contributes to that Class I area. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ We note that RPGs are a regulatory construct that we
developed to address statutory mandate in CAA section 169B(e)(1),
which required our regulations to include ``criteria for measuring
`reasonable progress' toward the national goal.'' Under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii), RPGs measure the progress that is projected to be
achieved by the control measures a state has determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress. Consistent with the 1999 RHR,
the RPGs are unenforceable, though they create a benchmark that
allows for analytical comparisons to the URP and mid-implementation-
period course corrections if necessary. 82 FR 3091-3092 (January 10,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In comments on EPA's initial NPRM (90 FR 6932, January 21, 2025),
West Virginia explained the following: ``The DAQ [WV DEP's Division of
Air Quality] asserts progress towards decreasing visibility impairment
since the first implementation period has immensely exceeded the
expectations of the EPA, States, Federal land managers, and the public,
causing an unreasonable belief additional visibility improvement can
continue indefinitely at such a rapid pace via arbitrary federally
enforceable emissions limits.'' \15\ The State also disagreed ``with
the assertion that its four-factor analysis was insufficient because it
did not reach the conclusion additional controls were required.'' \16\
Similarly, MonPower commented that Class I areas ``are presently well
below the URP glide paths, proving that already implemented past
measures have been and continue to be successful.'' \17\ In this
proposed action, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP submittal
because the State evaluated potential additional measures, considered
the four statutory factors, and the visibility conditions for affected
Class I areas are below the URP, thus supporting the State's decision
regarding reasonable progress for the second planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See p. 5 of WV DEP's February 19, 2025, comment letter.
\16\ See p. 5 of WV DEP's February 19, 2025, comment letter.
\17\ See p. 1 of MonPower's February 20, 2025, comment letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has the discretion and authority to change policy. In FCC
v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court plainly stated
that an agency is free to change a prior policy and ``need not
demonstrate . . . that the reasons for the new policy are better than
the reasons for the old one; it suffices that the new policy is
permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and
that the agency believes it to be better.'' 566 U.S. 502, 515 (2009)
(referencing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of United States, Inc. v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)). See also Perez v.
Mortgage Bankers Assn., 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015). As stated above, the
EPA believes that its new policy here aligns with the purpose of the
statute and RHR, which is achieving ``reasonable'' progress, not
maximal progress, toward Congress' natural visibility goal.
In the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA addressed the role of the URP as
it relates to a State's development of its second planning period SIP.
82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Specifically, in response to comments
suggesting that the URP should be considered a ``safe harbor'' and
relieve States of any obligation to consider the four statutory
factors, the EPA explained that the URP was not intended to be such a
safe harbor. 82 FR 3099 (January 10, 2017). Some commenters stated a
desire for corresponding rule text dealing with situations where RPGs
are equal to (``on'') or better than (``below'') the URP or glidepath.
Several commenters stated that the URP or glidepath should be a ``safe
harbor,'' opining that states should be permitted to analyze whether
projected visibility conditions for the end of the implementation
period will be on or below the glidepath based on on-the-books or on-
the-way control measures, and that in such cases a four-
[[Page 16484]]
factor analysis should not be required. Id. Other 2017 RHR comments
indicated a similar approach, such as ``a somewhat narrower entrance to
a `safe harbor,' '' by suggesting that if current visibility conditions
are already below the end-of-planning-period point on the URP line, a
four-factor analysis should not be required. Id. The EPA stated in its
response that we do not agree with either of these recommendations. The
CAA requires that each SIP revision contain long-term strategies for
making reasonable progress, and that in determining reasonable progress
states must consider the four statutory factors. Treating the URP as a
safe harbor would be inconsistent with the statutory requirement that
states assess the potential to make further reasonable progress towards
natural visibility goal in every implementation period. Id.
However, so long as a State considers the four factors, the
presumption that a Class I area below the URP is achieving reasonable
progress is consistent with the CAA and RHR. Indeed, we believe this
policy also recognizes the considerable improvements in visibility
impairment that have been made by a wide variety of State and Federal
programs in recent decades. EPA invites comments on this proposed
policy. In sum, West Virginia selected a number of sources, evaluated
emissions control measures, and considered the four statutory factors.
In addition, visibility conditions at all Class I areas to which West
Virginia contributes are below the URP. In light of these facts, the
EPA agrees with West Virginia's conclusion that no additional measures
are necessary to make reasonable progress during the second planning
period and is proposing to approve the State's SIP submittal. The EPA's
determinations are described in more detail in section VI of this
document.
VI. The EPA's Evaluation of West Virginia's Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Planning Period
The EPA invites comments on the following subsections that contain
our evaluation of WV's regional haze plan submittal with respect to the
requirements of the CAA and RHR for the second planning period of the
regional haze program.
1. Identification of Class I Areas
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each State in which any
Class I Area is located or ``the emissions from which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in
a Class I Area to have a plan for making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. The RHR implements this statutory requirement
at 40 CFR 51.308(f) introductory text, which provides that each State's
plan ``must address Regional Haze in each mandatory Class I Federal
Area located within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal
Area located outside the State that may be affected by emissions from
within the State,'' and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), which requires each
State's plan to include a long-term strategy that addresses Regional
Haze in such Class I Areas.
The EPA concluded in the 1999 RHR that ``all [s]tates contain
sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
regional haze in a Class I area,'' 64 FR 35721 (July 1, 1999), and this
determination was not changed in the 2017 RHR. Critically, the statute
and regulation both require that the cause-or-contribute assessment
consider all emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from a state,
as opposed to emissions of a particular pollutant or emissions from a
certain set of sources.
To address 40 CFR 51.308(f), WV DEP identified Class I areas within
West Virginia and out-of-state Class I areas downwind of West Virginia
that were affected by West Virginia statewide emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants. West Virginia has two mandatory Class I areas
within its borders: Dolly Sods Wilderness Area (Dolly Sods) and Otter
Creek Wilderness Area (Otter Creek). Out-of-state Class I Areas
affected by West Virginia included Acadia National Park (Maine), James
River Face Wilderness Area (Virginia), Lye Brook Wilderness Area
(Vermont), Moosehorn Wilderness Area (Maine), Roosevelt Campobello
International Park (Maine/New Brunswick), Shenandoah National Park
(Virginia), and Swanquarter Wilderness Area (North Carolina). West
Virginia, like other Visibility Improvement State and Tribal
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) States, implemented a two-step
process to select sources contributing to visibility impairment in
Class I areas within and outside the State. West Virginia presented the
results of Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT)
\18\ modeling that VISTAS conducted to estimate the projected impact of
statewide SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions across all
emissions sectors in 2028 on total light extinction for the 20 percent
most impaired days in all Class I areas in the VISTAS modeling
domain.\19\ PSAT results were used to calculate the percent
contribution of each tagged facility to the total sulfate and nitrate
point source (electric generating unit (EGU) + non-EGU) contribution at
each Class I area; more details of the PSAT analysis can be found in
Appendix E-7b of WV DEP's SIP submittal. West Virginia also relied on
facility-level SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> Area of Influence
(AoI) analyses \20\ for each Class I area to assess relative visibility
impacts from each facility.\21\ WV DEP concluded that sources and
emissions within the State contribute to visibility impairment at seven
out-of-state Class I Areas and took part in the emission control
strategy consultation process as a member of VISTAS. WV DEP also
included analyses of visibility impairing pollutant emissions and
visibility impacts from other regional planning organizations (RPOs)
and States, and their impact on Class I Areas within VISTAS.\22\ From
these analyses, WV DEP concluded that ``sulfate will generally be a
much larger contributor to visibility impairment in 2028 at VISTAS
mandatory Federal Class I areas than nitrates'' and, that ``emissions
from other planning organizations . . . generally have higher
contributions to 2028 visibility impairment at mandatory Federal Class
I areas in VISTAS than the emissions from the home State.'' \23\ The
[[Page 16485]]
State adequately addressed the elements of 40 CFR 51.308(f) regarding
identification of its statewide visibility impacts to Class I areas
outside of the State and consulting with States with Class I areas
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility due to West Virginia's emissions. The State's
approach of focusing on SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> impacts from
West Virginia on the basis that for current visibility conditions
evaluated for the 2014-2018 period, ammonium sulfate is the dominant
visibility impairing pollutant at most of the VISTAS Class I areas
followed by organic carbon and ammonium nitrate (depending on the area)
is reasonable. VISTAS focused on controllable emissions from point
sources and thus, initially considered impacts from sulfates and
nitrates on regional haze at Class I areas affected by VISTAS States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ PSAT is Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology,
which is an option in the photochemical visibility impact modeling
performed by VISTAS that is a methodology to track the fate of both
primary and secondary PM. PSAT allows emissions to be tracked
(``tagged'') for individual facilities as well as various
combinations of sectors and geographic areas (e.g., by state). The
PSAT results provide the modeled contribution of each of the tagged
sources or groups of sources to the total visibility impacts.
\19\ West Virginia did not include primary PM (directly emitted)
data in this analysis because the PSAT analyses performed by VISTAS
tagged statewide emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> and
did not tag primary total PM emissions in the analysis after
concluding that emissions of the PM precursors SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF>, particularly from point sources, are projected to
have the largest impact on visibility impairment in 2028 and that
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> are the most significant
visibility impairing pollutants from controllable anthropogenic
sources.
\20\ States often use an AoI analysis to help identify the areas
and sources most likely contributing to poor visibility in Class I
areas. The AoI analysis involves running a backward trajectory model
to determine the origin of the air parcels affecting visibility,
which is then combined with emissions data to determine the sources
or source sectors most likely contributing to pollutant emissions.
For more information on AoI analyses, see Appendix D of WV DEP's
Regional Haze SIP Submittal for the 2nd Planning Period.
\21\ See section 7.5, ``Area of Influence Analyses for West
Virginia Class I Areas,'' of WV DEP's Regional Haze SIP Submittal
for the 2nd Planning Period.
\22\ See section 7.2.3, ``Projected VISTAS 2028 Emissions
Inventory'', section 7.2.5, ``2028 Visibility Projection Results'',
and section 7.4, ``Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment:
Pollutants, Source Categories, and Geographic Areas,'' of WV DEP's
Regional Haze SIP Submittal for the 2nd Planning Period.
\23\ See section 7.4, ``Relative Contributions to Visibility
Impairment: Pollutants, Source Categories, and Geographic Areas,''
of WV DEP's Regional Haze SIP Submittal for the 2nd Planning Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing that West Virginia has satisfied the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), related to the identification of
Class I areas outside of West Virginia that may be affected by
emissions from within the State and consultation with affected States
because the State analyzed its statewide sulfate and nitrate
contributions to total visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I
areas (Figure 7-14 of WV DEP's submittal); none of the Class I areas
that WV sources contribute to from Figure 7-14 of WV DEP's submittal
have 2028 RPGs on the 20 percent most impaired days above the URP; West
Virginia analyzed its in-state and out-of-state impacts through
modeling; and the State completed consultation with VISTAS and Mid-
Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) States via the RPO
processes.
2. Calculation of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility Conditions;
Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine the following for
``each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State'':
baseline visibility conditions for the clearest days and most impaired
days, natural visibility conditions for clearest days and most impaired
days, progress to date for the clearest days and most impaired days,
the differences between current visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions, and the URP. This section also provides the
option for states to propose adjustments to the URP line for a Class I
area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or the impacts from wildland prescribed
fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B). The URP can then be used in the manner described
in section V. of this document.
In its submittal, WV DEP included baseline visibility conditions
(2000-2004) in Table 2-3; current visibility conditions (2014-2018) in
Table 2-5; \24\ and natural visibility conditions in Table 2-2 for the
20 percent most impaired and 20 percent clearest days for the State's
Class I areas in deciviews. WV DEP also included for its Class I areas
the actual progress made toward natural visibility conditions to date
since the baseline period (current minus baseline), and the additional
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions from current
conditions (natural minus current), in deciviews, in Table 2-6 (for the
20 percent most impaired days) and Table 2-7 (for the 20 percent
clearest days).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The period 2014-2018 represents current visibility
conditions for West Virginia because it is the most recent five-year
period for which visibility monitoring data were available at the
time of SIP development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Figure 3-1 of WV DEP's submittal provide the URP
figures for the 20 percent most impaired days for Dolly Sods, which
also represents the URP for Otter Creek. The URPs were developed using
EPA guidance \25\ and used data collected from the IMPROVE monitoring
network which is used to measure visibility impairment caused by air
pollution at the 156 Class I areas covered by the visibility program.
All West Virginia Class I areas are projected to be below the 2028 URP
values for the second planning period based on VISTAS' modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ``Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program.'' EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
(December 20, 2018). <a href="http://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/technical_guidance_tracking_visibility_progress.pdf">www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/technical_guidance_tracking_visibility_progress.pdf</a> and
<a href="http://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/documents/memo_data_for_regional_haze_technical_addendum.pdf">www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/documents/memo_data_for_regional_haze_technical_addendum.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WV DEP's submittal meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)
because the State provided for its two Class I areas: baseline,
current, and natural visibility conditions for the 20 percent clearest
days and most impaired days; progress to date for the 20 percent
clearest days and most impaired days; differences between the current
visibility conditions and natural visibility conditions; and the URP
for each Class I area in West Virginia. Therefore, the EPA is proposing
to approve the portions of WV DEP's SIP submission related to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1).
3. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) for Regional Haze
The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a long-term
strategy that addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a
State's borders and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions
from the State. The long-term strategy ``must include the enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that
are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to
(f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress
that is ``reasonable progress'' is based on applying the four statutory
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential control
options for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is
referred to as a ``four-factor'' analysis. The outcome of that analysis
is the emission reduction measures that a particular source or group of
sources needs to implement in order to make reasonable progress towards
the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress may
be either new, additional control measures for a source, or they may be
the existing emission reduction measures that a source is already
implementing. See 2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8-
10. Such measures must be represented by ``enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures'' (i.e., any
additional compliance tools) in a State's long-term strategy in its
SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the four-
factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails selecting the
sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end,
the RHR requires States to consider ``major and minor stationary
sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources'' of
visibility impairing pollutants for potential four-factor control
analysis. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold question at this step is
which visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed, which we
previously addressed in section VI.1 of this document.
To determine the necessary emission reductions measures, a state
must first select the sources to evaluate. WV DEP included information
on the emissions impacts from numerous sources within the state on
various Class I Areas. Section 7.6.1, Table 7-17 of the WV DEP
submittal lists the facilities selected for PSAT tagging in Virginia
and West
[[Page 16486]]
Virginia based on an AOI visibility contribution of 0.2% or more which
include thirteen facilities located in West Virginia.\26\ West Virginia
then decided not to select eight of those facilities for analysis of
reasonable progress measures or controls.\27\ The State considered a
percent contribution of greater than or equal to 1.00% (individual
facility contribution divided by the total sulfate and nitrate
contributions from EGU + non-EGU point sources) to determine whether to
select a facility for a reasonable progress analysis. West Virginia
excluded seven of the eight unselected facilities in part based on a
PSAT modeling result of <1.00% as well as various factors through a
qualitative weight-of-the evidence approach.\28\ The remaining of the
unselected facilities, Grant Town Plant,\29\ had a PSAT modeling result
of >=1.00% which WV DEP scaled down to <1.00% contribution to Dolly
Sods based on recent emissions data.\30\ WV DEP also included
discussion as to why no reasonable progress analysis is warranted for
Mountaineer Plant, a ninth facility that was not tagged for PSAT
modeling.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Allegheny Energy Supply Co, LLC--Harrison; American
Bituminous Power--Grant Town Plant; Appalachian Power Company--John
E. Amos Plant; Dominion Resources, Inc.--Mount Storm Power Station;
Equitrans--Copley Run CS 70; Files Creek; Glady; Kingsford
Manufacturing Company; Longview Power; Mitchell Plant; Monongahela
Power Co.--Fort Martin Power; Monongahela Power Co.--Pleasants Power
Station; Morgantown Energy Associates.
\27\ See section 7.6.4, ``Selection of Sources for Reasonable
Progress Evaluation'' of WV DEP's Regional Haze SIP submittal for
the 2nd Planning Period (``section 7.6.4'' or ``section 7.6.4 of the
SIP submittal'').
\28\ Id.
\29\ West Virginia refers to this facility as ``Grant Town
Plant'' as well as ``Grant Town Power Plant'' in the SIP submittal.
\30\ Id. at 182 of 257.
\31\ Id. at 187 of 257. West Virginia might have included
Mountaineer because the EPA's January 5, 2022 comments submitted
during the public comment period asked for ``further explanation of
why the 4th largest SO<INF>2</INF> source in the state was not
selected for a 4-factor analysis. . . .'' Appendix H-4 ``West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air
Quality Responses to EPA Region 3 Comments on the West Virginia
Draft Regional Haze State Implementation Plan August 2022,''
section. 6.e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After excluding eight of the thirteen facilities selected for PSAT
tagging--along with Mountaineer Plant, which had not been selected for
PSAT--West Virginia then selected the remaining five facilities:
Harrison Power Station; Fort Martin Power Station; Pleasants Power
Station; Mitchell Plant; and the John E. Amos Plant, to perform a four-
factor analysis.\32\ WV DEP also included in its reasonable progress
discussion at section 7.8 of the SIP submittal a sixth facility--Grant
Town Plant--which was initially included among the eight facilities for
which WV DEP explained that no reasonable progress analysis was
warranted.\33\ Although the State then selected Grant Town Plant for a
reasonable progress evaluation, it did not contact the facility to
request such analysis giving as the reason, ``the facility is already
subject to a federally enforceable Title V permit (R30-04900026-2020)
that limits SO<INF>2</INF> emissions to less than the quantity
projected to exceed the 1.00% visibility threshold of the VISTAS PSAT
modeling.'' \34\ We refer to these particular facilities as the
``selected six facilities'' or the ``six selected sources''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See section 7.8, ``Reasonable Progress for Individual
Sources to be Included in the Long-Term Strategy'', of WV DEP's
Regional Haze SIP submittal for the 2nd Planning Period (``section
7.8'' or ``section 7.8 of the SIP submittal'').
\33\ Id. and section 7.6.4 of the SIP submittal.
\34\ Section 7.8 of the SIP submittal at 197 of 257.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 7.6.2, Table 7-19 of the SIP submittal contains PSAT
results for the Dolly Sods Area, which includes fifteen facilities
where sulfate contributions are >=1.00% and addresses nearly 36.5% of
the entire sulfate plus nitrate point source visibility impact in 2028;
six of these fifteen facilities are located in West Virginia.\35\ Table
7-20 contains PSAT results for the Otter Creek Wilderness Area, which
includes fourteen facilities where sulfate contributions are >=1.00%
and addresses more than 34.7% of the entire sulfate plus nitrate point
source visibility impact in 2028; five of these fourteen facilities are
located in West Virginia.\36\ The West Virginia facilities listed in
Tables 7-19 and 7-20 are the same as the five facilities plus Grant
Town Plant in section 7.8 of the SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Allegheny Energy Supply Co, LLC--Harrison; Monongahela
Power Co--Pleasants Power Station; Kentucky Power Company--Mitchell
Plant; Appalachian Power Company--John E. Amos Plant; Monongahela
Power Co--Fort Martin Power; and American Bituminous Power--Grant
Town Plant.
\36\ Allegheny Energy Supply Co, LLC--Harrison; Monongahela
Power Co--Pleasants Power Station; Kentucky Power Company--Mitchell
Plant; Appalachian Power Company--John E. Amos Plant; and
Monongahela Power Co--Fort Martin Power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 7-21 through 7-27 contain the PSAT results for the five West
Virginia facilities \37\ that WV DEP selected for evaluation of
emissions control measures based on sulfate contributions of >=1.00% to
the following out-of-state Class I Areas: Acadia National Park (Maine),
James River Face Wilderness Area (Virginia), Lye Brook Wilderness Area
(Vermont), Moosehorn Wilderness Area (Maine), Roosevelt Campobello
International Park (Maine/New Brunswick), Shenandoah National Park
(Virginia), and Swanquarter Wilderness Area (North Carolina),
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Allegheny Energy Supply Co, LLC--Harrison; Monongahela
Power Co--Pleasants Power Station; Kentucky Power Company--Mitchell
Plant; Appalachian Power Company--John E. Amos Plant; and
Monongahela Power Co--Fort Martin Power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, WV DEP states that (1) the Allegheny Energy Supply Co
LLC--Harrison facility \38\ affects eight Class I areas; (2)
Monongahela Power Co.--Pleasants Power Station impacts six Class I
areas; (3) Mitchell Plant impacts four Class I areas; (4) Monongahela
Power Co.--Fort Martin Power impacts three Class I areas; (5)
Appalachian Power Company--John E. Amos Plant impacts three Class I
areas; and (6) American Bituminous Power--Grant Town Plant impacts one
Class I area. The full list of tagged facilities and their
contributions to each Class I area can be found in Appendix E-7b of the
SIP submittal. WV DEP ultimately identifies six West Virginia
facilities as contributing to visibility impairment in at least one
Class I Area, and five of these facilities as contributing to
visibility impairment in multiple Class I Areas.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ WV DEP sometimes refers to this facility as Monongahela
Power Company--Harrison Power Station, with a Facility ID of 54033-
6271711. This is the same Facility ID used for Allegheny Energy
Supply Co LLC--Harrison.
\39\ See section 7.6.2, ``PSAT Contributions at West Virginia
Class I Areas,'' and section 7.6.3, ``AoI versus PSAT
Contributions,'' of WV DEP's Regional Haze SIP submittal for the 2nd
Planning Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, West Virginia selected six facilities via their source
selection process: Harrison Power Station; Fort Martin Power Station;
Pleasants Power Station; Mitchell Plant; Grant Town; and the John E.
Amos Plant. All the selected facilities are coal- or coal waste-fired
EGUs, and as such are already subject to many Federal and State air
pollution regulatory programs, which were described in WV DEP's
submittal. Each of the coal-fired EGUs already have scrubber technology
installed, except for one,\40\ and are operating pursuant to the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) program; and Mitchell Power Plant has
an SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit of 3,149 lbs/hr on a 30-day rolling
average in the West Virginia SIP.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ American Bituminous Power--Grant Town Plant consists of two
circulating fluidized bed boilers. Although theses boilers do not
have flue gas desulfurization (scrubbers), limestone is introduced
directly into the combustion area of the boilers to capture and
remove SO<INF>2</INF>.
\41\ See 40 CFR 52.2520(d) and 85 FR 67664, October 26, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WV DEP's Regional Haze SIP submittal included a general cost
analysis for the six selected sources. This included cost analyses for
replacing SO<INF>2</INF> controls at the six selected facilities with
limestone forced
[[Page 16487]]
oxidation (LFSO) scrubbers, assuming 98% control efficiency and a
remaining useful life of 20 years. WV DEP stated that LFSO was chosen
because it is considered the best control technology with the highest
SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiency for coal boiler acid gas controls,
and noted that LFSO was already installed and in operation at several
of these facilities.\42\ Additionally, for these sources, WV DEP
estimated the replacement costs per facility, and per unit, of their
Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) systems.\43\ WV DEP determined that the
cost to replace scrubbers on these facilities and units was not cost
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Section 7.8 of the SIP submittal at 202 of 257, and Table
7-37.
\43\ Section 7.8 of the SIP submittal at 204 of 257, and Table
7-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WV Regional Haze SIP submittal also contains a detailed four-
factor analysis for Pleasants Power Station, which reviewed three pre-
combustion and five post-combustion SO<INF>2</INF> emissions
controls.\44\ The pre-combustion control options considered were:
utilization of lower sulfur coals; fuel blending with limestone; and
coal cleaning. The post-combustion controls considered were: wet
limestone scrubbers, also known as LSFO; \45\ spray dry absorbers
(SDA); dry sorbent injection (DSI); circulating dry scrubbers with
fabric filters (DS/FF); and hydrated ash reinjection (HAR).'' \46\
Based on the documentation provided within the submittal, it appears WV
DEP relied, at least in part, on the January 2021 ``Regional Haze Four-
Factor Analysis'' \47\ provided by Energy Harbor to eliminate all
potential control options, aside from LSFO, from further consideration
under the four statutory factors under the basis of technological
feasibility. The single feasible technology, LFSO, was analyzed using
the four factors. The estimated cost-effectiveness of the LFSO system
is $11,292.95 per ton, or $9,931.94 per ton for one scrubber, and was
determined by WV DEP to not be economically feasible to install.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Section 7.8 of the SIP submittal at 199 of 257.
\45\ LSFO is the correct abbreviation, though West Virginia also
uses the incorrect abbreviation LFSO multiple times in the SIP
submittal as quoted by EPA.
\46\ Section 7.8 of the SIP submittal at 199 of 257.
\47\ Appendix G-2 at G-2d, ``Response Letter from Energy Harbor
(Pleasants Station),'' WV DEP's Regional Haze SIP Submittal for the
2nd Planning Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a State determines through consideration of the four statutory
factors that no measures are necessary to make reasonable progress for
this planning period for a Class I area that is below the URP, then the
State generally does not need to include any additional measures in its
long-term strategy. The purpose of the long-term strategy is to make
reasonable progress toward Congress' national goal, but if the state
has considered the four factors, and a Class I area is below the URP,
it has presumptively already made reasonable progress for the planning
period. It thus follows that additional measures for West Virginia's
long-term strategy are unnecessary for this planning period,
particularly when there is no evidence in the record that visibility
conditions at the impacted Class I areas might deteriorate absent
enforceable measures.
Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provides that states must consult with
other states that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I Area to develop coordinated emission
management strategies containing the emission reductions measures that
are necessary to make reasonable progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A)
and (B) require states to consider the emission reduction measures
identified by other states as necessary for reasonable progress and to
include agreed upon measures in their SIPs. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C)
requires a State to document in its SIP submission all substantive
consultations with other contributing States and also speaks to what
happens if states cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress. WV DEP included documentation of its calls,
webinars, presentations, and other consultation with VISTAS and non-
VISTAS states from December 2017 to October 2020. West Virginia's
consultation documentation confirms that no states disagreed with or
provided comment on West Virginia's approach to its long-term strategy.
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) requires that the emissions information
considered to determine the measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data
to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a twelve-month exemption
period for newly submitted data. WV DEP included emissions information
from the most recent year in its submittal; 2017, 2018, and 2019
emissions information that had been previously reported to the EPA and
compared these emissions to the 2028 emissions used in its
modeling.\48\ Table 7-35 shows all West Virginia facilities with
greater than 100 tpy SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in 2017 and Table 7-36
shows all West Virginia facilities with greater than 100 tpy
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See section 7.6.5, ``Evaluation of Recent Emission
Inventory Information,'' of WV DEP's Regional Haze SIP Submittal for
the 2nd Planning Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) requires states to consider the following
additional factors in developing its long-term strategy: (1) emission
reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including
measures to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) source
retirement and replacement schedules; (4) basic smoke management
practices for prescribed fire used for agricultural and wildland
vegetation management purposes and smoke management programs; and (5)
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by
the long-term strategy. WV DEP includes information on these factors in
its SIP submittal, including additional information on smoke management
practices and measures to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Section 7.9 of the SIP submittal at 207 of 257.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the reasoning described in section V and VI in this
document, EPA is proposing that West Virginia has met the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
4. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
West Virginia identified 2028 RPGs for each of its Class I areas in
deciviews for the 20 percent most impaired days and the 20 percent
clearest days in Tables 8-1 and 8-2 of its regional haze plan
submittal, respectively, which are well below the 2028 URP value for
each Class I area. Table 1, in this document, summarizes the 2028 RPGs
and 2028 URP for West Virginia's Class I areas.
[[Page 16488]]
Table 1--West Virginia's Class I Area 2028 RPGs and URP in Deciviews (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2028 RPG for 20% 2028 Uniform rate
Class I area 2028 RPG for 20% most impaired of progress
clearest days days (URP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area............................. 7.55 15.29 20.54
Otter Creek Wilderness Area............................ 7.55 15.29 20.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3-1 of the WV DEP regional haze plan submittal shows the URP
for the 20 percent most impaired days for Dolly Sods Wilderness Area
which also represents the URP for the Otter Creek Wilderness Area.
Therefore, EPA is proposing that West Virginia satisfied the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The State established 2028 RPGs
expressed in deciviews that reflect the visibility conditions that are
projected to be achieved by the end of the second planning period. West
Virginia's RPGs illustrate improvement in visibility for the 20 percent
most impaired days since the baseline period (2000-2004) and
demonstrate that there is no degradation in visibility for the 20
percent clearest days since the baseline period. EPA is also proposing
that West Virginia has satisfied the applicable requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii) because the projected 2028 visibility conditions for
both in-state and out-of-state Class I areas influenced by emissions
from West Virginia sources are all below the URP.
5. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of
a State's Regional Haze SIP must contain or provide for certain
elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and
any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and
report on visibility. A main requirement of this section is for States
with Class I Areas to submit monitoring strategies for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting on visibility impairment. Section
51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs to provide for procedures by which
monitoring data and other information are used in determining the
contribution of emissions from within the State to Regional Haze
visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal Areas both within
and outside the State. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii) requires SIPs to
provide procedures by which monitoring data and other information are
used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State
to Regional Haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal
Areas in other States. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to
provide for the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the State.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for
the most recent year for which data are available. Section
51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires States to include estimates of future
projected emissions and include a commitment to update the inventory
periodically.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(i), WV DEP stated that the
existing IMPROVE monitors for the State's Class I areas are sufficient
for the purposes of this SIP revision. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(ii), WV DEP stated that it will use data from these
IMPROVE monitors for future haze plans and progress reports. Section
51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not apply to West Virginia, as this provision
only applies to States with no Class I areas. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(iv), the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) manages and
oversees the IMPROVE monitoring network and reviews, verifies, and
validates IMPROVE data before its submission to the EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS). With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v), WV DEP provided a
baseline emissions inventories, current emissions data, and 2028 future
emissions projections for visibility-impairing pollutants for source
categories and specific point sources, and committed to update the
inventory periodically.\50\ With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi),
West Virginia affirmed that there are no elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, or other measures, necessary to address and report on
visibility for West Virginia's Class I areas or Class I areas outside
the State that are affected by sources in West Virginia. Therefore, EPA
is proposing that West Virginia has satisfied the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See section 4, ``Types of Emissions Impacting Visibility
Impairment in West Virginia Class I Areas'', section 7.2.4, ``EPA
Inventories'', and section 13, ``Progress Report,'' of WV DEP's
Regional Haze SIP Submittal for the 2nd Planning Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward the
RPGs
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first planning period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and EPA about a state's
implementation of its existing LTS and whether such implementation is
in fact resulting in the expected visibility improvement. See 81 FR
26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), 82 FR 3119 (January 10, 2017).
A core component of the progress report requirements is an
assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest and most
impaired days. For second planning period progress reports, 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3) requires states with Class I areas within their borders to
first determine current visibility conditions for each area on the most
impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i), and then to
calculate the difference between those current conditions and baseline
(2000-2004) visibility conditions to assess progress made to date. See
40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii). States must also assess the changes in
visibility impairment for the most impaired and clearest days since
they submitted their first planning period progress reports. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(5) and (g)(3)(iii). Since different states submitted their
first planning period progress reports at different times, the starting
point for this assessment will vary state by state.
Similarly, states must provide analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the state over the period since they
submitted their first planning period progress reports. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(5) and (g)(4). Changes in emissions should be identified by
the type of source or activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses
changes in emissions since the period addressed by
[[Page 16489]]
the previous progress report and requires states' implementation plan
revisions to include an assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state. This assessment
must include an explanation of whether these changes in emissions were
anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded progress in
reducing emissions and improving visibility relative to what the state
projected based on its LTS for the first planning period.
With respect to the progress report elements pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(5), WV DEP addressed these elements in section 13 of its
submittal for the period 2011 to 2018, the end of the first period.
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2), WV DEP describes the status
of the implementation of the measures of the LTS from the first
planning period in section 13.3 of its submittal and provides a summary
of the emission reductions achieved by implementing those measures.
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), WV DEP calculated current visibility
conditions, the difference between current visibility conditions
compared to the baseline, and the change in visibility impairment for
the most and least impaired days over the past five years for the
State's two Class I areas in Tables 13-5, 13-6, 13-7, and 13-8. WV DEP
concluded that IMPROVE monitoring data show that all West Virginia
Class I areas are well below the 2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days
and there is no degradation on the 20 percent best/clearest days which
is illustrated in Figures 13-2 and 13-3 of WV DEP's submittal.
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), in section 13.5, WV DEP provided
emissions trends from 2011 through 2019 for PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF> which reflect the emissions
reductions from the measures in the first planning period LTS. WV DEP
reviewed anthropogenic SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
trends based on emissions included in the 2011, 2014, and 2017 National
Emissions Inventories (NEIs) for the VISTAS states and all of the RPOs.
The data show a decline in SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
from 2014 through 2019 in Table 13-10 and Figures 13-11, 13-12, and
Table 13-13 of WV DEP's submittal. WV DEP concluded that there does not
appear to be any anthropogenic emissions within West Virginia that
would have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions
or improving visibility.
The EPA is proposing that WV DEP has met the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) through (5) because its submittal adequately describes the
status of the measures included in the LTS from the first planning
period and the emission reductions achieved from those measures; the
visibility conditions and changes at the West Virginia Class I areas;
an analysis tracking the changes in emissions since the first planning
period progress report using available emissions data from 2011-2019,
including annual 2018 and 2019 emissions data and 2017 NEI data which
is the most recent triennial emissions inventory submission from WV DEP
prior to submission of their 2022 haze submittal in accordance with the
RHR; and assessed whether any significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions within or outside the State have occurred since the end of
the period addressed by WV DEP's first planning period progress report,
including whether these changes in anthropogenic emissions were
anticipated in that most recent plan and whether they have limited or
impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving
visibility. Thus, EPA is proposing that West Virginia has satisfied the
progress report elements pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5).
7. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager (FLM) Coordination
EPA is proposing that West Virginia satisfied the requirements for
State and Federal Land Manager coordination. West Virginia submitted a
draft of its haze plan to the FLMs for review on August 27, 2021. WV
DEP held a consultation call with NPS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Forest Service, and EPA on October 19, 2021. WV DEP held a public
hearing on its proposed haze plan on November 30, 2021. On November 5,
2021, WV DEP opened the comment period, and after two extensions the
comment period closed on January 10, 2022. As part of extending the
comment period, WV DEP included in a notice a reference to materials
including the FLMs conclusions and recommendations made available to
the public.
The EPA is proposing that, as required by CAA section 169A(d), that
the State consulted with the FLMs prior to holding a public hearing on
its proposed haze plan, and that the State also provided the FLMs'
conclusions and recommendations to the public during the comment
period. The State also satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).
As required by 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), WV DEP provided the FLMs with the
opportunity to consult. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), WV DEP
also responded to the FLMs' comments in Appendix H-2 of its submittal.
Finally, sections 1.6 and 11 of the regional haze SIP describe how WV
DEP will meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) regarding
procedures for continuing consultation.
VII. Proposed Action
For the reasons set forth in this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to
approve West Virginia's August 12, 2022 SIP submittal as satisfying the
regional haze requirements for the second planning period contained in
40 CFR 51.308(f).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does
not apply because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866;
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> 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
[[Page 16490]]
application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean
Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Catherine A. Libertz,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2025-06608 Filed 4-16-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 18, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.