[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41158-41177]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17664]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0092; FRL-9437-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval
of a revision to the West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the State of West Virginia through the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) on June 18, 2008, that
addresses regional haze for the first implementation period. This
revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future, and remedy any
existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I
areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources
located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional
haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in
Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision
to implement the regional haze requirements for West Virginia on the
basis that the revision, as a whole, strengthens the West Virginia SIP.
Also in this action, EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of this
same SIP revision because of the deficiencies in the State's June 2008
regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). EPA is also proposing to approve this
revision as meeting the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0092 by one of the following methods
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0092, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0092. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov website
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in

the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE.,
Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 18, 2008, the WVDEP submitted a
revision to its SIP for Regional Haze.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the RHR
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is the relationship of the CAIR to the regional haze
requirements?
    A. Overview of EPA's CAIR
    B. Remand of the CAIR
    C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially Affected by the CAIR
Remand
    D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed Limited Approval
V. What is EPA's analysis of West Virginia's regional haze
submittal?
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
    1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
    2. Modeling to Support the LTS and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants,
Source Categories, and Geographic Areas
    4. Procedure for Identifying Sources to Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls in West Virginia and Surrounding Areas
    5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable
Progress Analysis
    6. BART
    7. RPGs
    D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
    F. Consultation With States and FLMs
    1. Consultation With Other States
    2. Consultation With the FLMs
    G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
VI. What action is EPA proposing?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of West Virginia's June 18,
2008 SIP revision addressing regional haze because the revision as a
whole strengthens the West Virginia SIP. EPA is also proposing to find
that this revision meets the applicable visibility related requirements
of CAA Section 110(a)(2) including, but not limited to
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility protection
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. However, the West Virginia SIP relies on CAIR, an EPA rule, to
satisfy key elements of the regional haze requirements. Due to the
remand of CAIR, see North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Circuit
2008), the revision does not meet all of the applicable requirements of
the CAA and EPA's regulations as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of
the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308. As a result, EPA is concurrently
proposing a limited disapproval of West Virginia's SIP revision. The
revision nevertheless represents an improvement over the current SIP,
and makes considerable progress in fulfilling the applicable CAA
regional haze program requirements. This proposed rulemaking explains
the basis for EPA's proposed limited approval and limited disapproval
actions.
    Under the CAA, sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6), and EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire
SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA
from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. Processing of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Air Division
Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni
Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. The deficiencies that EPA has identified as preventing a
full approval of this SIP revision relate to the status and impact of
CAIR on certain interrelated and required elements of the regional haze
program. At the time the West Virginia regional haze SIP was being
developed, the State's reliance on CAIR was fully consistent with EPA's
regulations, see (70 FR 39104, 39142-4143, July 6, 2005). CAIR, as
originally promulgated, requires significant reductions in emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) to
limit the interstate transport of these pollutants, and the reliance on
CAIR by affected states as an alternative to requiring BART for
electrical generating units (EGUs) had specifically been upheld in
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (DC Circuit 2006).
In 2008, however, the DC Circuit remanded CAIR back to EPA. See North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176. The court found CAIR to be inconsistent
with the requirements of the CAA, see North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d
896 (DC Circuit 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without
vacatur because it found that ``allowing CAIR to remain in effect until
it is replaced by a rule consistent with [the court's] opinion would at
least temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.''
See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. In response to the court's
decision, EPA has proposed a new rule to address interstate transport
of NOX and SOX in the eastern United States. (75
FR 45210, Aug. 2, 2010) (``the Transport Rule''). EPA explained in that
proposal that the Transport Rule, when finalized, will

replace CAIR and the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs). In other
words, the CAIR and CAIR FIP requirements, which were found to be
illegal by the DC Circuit, will not remain in force after the Transport
Rule requirements are in place. Given the status of CAIR, EPA is
proposing to find that West Virginia may not rely on CAIR in its
present form to provide reductions to satisfy the reasonable progress
and BART requirements of the regional haze program.
    While CAIR will not remain in effect indefinitely, it is currently
in force. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176. By granting limited
approval of West Virginia's regional haze SIP, EPA will allow the State
to rely on the emissions reductions associated with CAIR for so long as
CAIR is in place. We believe that this course of action is consistent
with the court's intention to keep CAIR in place in order to
``temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.'' Id,
at 1178.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors
(e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some cases, ammonia
(NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle
precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter that
impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility
impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one
can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and
mortality in humans and contributes to environmental effects such as
acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range \1\ in many Class I areas
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. (64
FR 35715, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \2\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. (44 FR 69122,
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in
section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin
Islands.\3\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments,
tribal governments, and various Federal Agencies established to
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the
Southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments
include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West

Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility

    Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require that
within three years of promulgation of a NAAQS, a State must ensure that
its SIP, among other requirements, ``contains adequate provisions
prohibiting any source or other types of emission activity within the
State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will interfere
with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation
plan for any other State to protect visibility.'' Similarly, section
110(a)(2)(J) requires that such SIP ``meet the applicable requirements
of part C of (Subchapter I) (relating to visibility protection).''
    EPA's 2006 Guidance, entitled ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' recognized the possibility
that a state could potentially meet the visibility portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission of a Regional Haze SIP, as
required by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. EPA's 2009 guidance,
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' recommended that a state could
meet such visibility requirements through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA's
rationale supporting this recommendation was that the development of
the regional haze SIPs was intended to occur in a collaborative
environment among the states, and that through this process states
would coordinate on emissions controls to protect visibility on an
interstate basis. The common understanding was that, as a result of
this collaborative environment, each state would take action to achieve
the emissions reductions relied upon by other states in their
reasonable progress demonstrations under the Regional Haze Rule. This
interpretation is consistent with the requirement in the Regional Haze
Rule that a state participating in a regional planning process must
include ``all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission
reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.'' 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    The regional haze program, as reflected in the Regional Haze Rule,
recognizes the importance of addressing the long-range transport of
pollutants for visibility and encourages states to work together to
develop plans to address haze. The regulations explicitly require each
state to address its share of the emission reductions needed to meet
the reasonable progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. States
working together through a regional planning process, are required to
address an agreed upon share of their contribution to visibility
impairment in the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these requirements, appropriate regional haze
SIPs will contain measures that will achieve these emissions reductions
and will meet the applicable visibility related requirements of section
110(a)(2).
    As a result of the regional planning efforts in the VISTAS, all
states in the VISTAS region contributed information used in the
analysis of the causes of haze, and the levels of contribution from all
sources within each state to the visibility degradation of each Class I
area. The VISTAS States consulted in the development of reasonable
progress goals. The modeling done by VISTAS relied on assumptions
regarding emissions over the relevant planning period and embedded in
these assumptions were anticipated emissions reductions in each of the
states in VISTAS, including reductions from BART and other measures to
be adopted as part of the State's long term strategy for addressing
regional haze. The reasonable progress goals in the regional haze SIPs
that have been prepared by the states in the VISTAS region are based,
in part, on the emissions reductions from nearby states that were
agreed on through the VISTAS process.
    West Virginia submitted a Regional Haze SIP on June 18, 2008, to
address the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. On December 3,
2007, West Virginia submitted its original 1997 Ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP. On April 3, 2008, West Virginia submitted a 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On May 21, 2008, West
Virginia submitted amendments to the 1997 Ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS infrastructure submittal. On October 1, 2009, West Virginia
submitted a 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. In the
October 1, 2009 submittal, West Virginia indicated that its Regional
Haze SIP would meet the requirements of the CAA, section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), regarding visibility for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. West Virginia also
indicated it will meet the visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(J), and
specifically references the Regional Haze SIP submitted in June. EPA
has reviewed West Virginia's Regional Haze SIP and, as explained in
section VI of this action, proposes to find that West Virginia's
Regional Haze submittal meets the portions of the requirements of the
CAA sections 110(a)(2) relating to visibility protection for the 1997
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. (64 FR 35714-35725, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal),
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused
by anthropogenic

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional
haze. The national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e.,
anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair
visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance'') and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals,
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program,
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2,
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'')
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult
with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states
with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at
the Class I state's areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \5\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use the approach set forth in
the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, to follow
the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of
sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source

in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility
impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA
has stated that states should use their best judgment in determining
whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility in Class I
areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR and document their
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART
controls on the source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration
for CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide
that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40
CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain
subject to the CAIR FIP in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected
BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions
of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since
CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, states were still required
to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART
for that pollutant.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP,
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG;
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7)
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by
the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze
SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Federal Areas within the state. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, (i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network). The monitoring strategy is due with
the first

regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The
monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites
if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will
be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is the relationship of the CAIR to the regional haze
requirements?

A. Overview of EPA's CAIR

    CAIR, as originally promulgated, requires 28 states and the
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and
NOX that significantly contribute to, or interfere with
maintenance of, the NAAQS for fine particulates and/or ozone in any
downwind state. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR establishes
emission budgets or caps for SO2 and NOX for
states that contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind
states and requires the significantly contributing states to submit SIP
revisions that implement these budgets. States have the flexibility to
choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets,
including participation in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs
addressing SO2, NOX-annual, and NOX-
ozone season emissions.

B. Remand of the CAIR

    On July 11, 2008, the DC Circuit issued its decision to vacate and
remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. See
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Circuit 2008). However, in
response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the court issued an order
remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs.
The court thereby left the EPA CAIR rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values
covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the
court's opinion. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. The court
directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July 11,
2008, opinion, but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for completing
that action. Because CAIR accordingly has been remanded to the Agency
without vacatur, CAIR and the CAIR FIPs are currently in effect in
subject states.

C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially Affected by the CAIR Remand

    The following is a summary of the elements of the regional haze
SIPs that are potentially affected by the remand of CAIR. Many states
relied on CAIR as an alternative to BART for SO2 and
NOX for subject EGUs, as allowed under the BART provisions
at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Additionally, several states established RPGs
that reflect the improvement in visibility expected to result from
controls planned for or already installed on sources within the state
to meet the CAIR provisions for this implementation period for
specified pollutants. Many states relied upon their own CAIR SIPs or
the CAIR FIPs for their states to provide the legal requirements which
leads to these planned controls, and did not include enforceable
measures in the LTS in the regional haze SIP submission to ensure these
reductions. States also submitted demonstrations showing that no
additional controls on EGUs beyond CAIR would be reasonable for this
implementation period. Due to EPA's need to address the concerns of the
court as outlined in its decision remanding CAIR, EPA believes it would
be inappropriate to fully approve states' LTSs that rely upon the
emissions reductions predicted to result from CAIR to meet the BART
requirement for EGUs or to meet the RPGs in the states' regional haze
SIPs. For this reason, EPA cannot fully approve regional haze SIP
revisions that rely on CAIR for emission reduction measures. EPA
therefore proposes to grant limited approval and limited disapproval of
the West Virginia SIP. The next section discusses how the Agency
proposes to address these deficiencies.

D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed Limited Approval

    EPA is intending to propose to issue limited approvals of those
regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR to address the impact of
emissions from a state's own EGUs. Limited approval results in approval
of the entire regional haze submission and all its elements. EPA is
taking this approach because an affected state's SIP will be stronger
and more protective of the environment with the implementation of those
measures by the state and having Federal approval and enforceability
than it would

without those measures being included in the state's SIP.
    EPA also intends to propose to issue limited disapprovals for
regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR concurrently with the
proposals for limited approval. As explained in the 1992 Calcagni
Memorandum, ``[t]hrough a limited approval, EPA [will] concurrently, or
within a reasonable period of time thereafter, disapprove the rule * *
* for not meeting all of the applicable requirements of the CAA * * *
[T]he limited disapproval is a rulemaking action, and it is subject to
notice and comment.'' Final limited disapproval of a SIP submittal does
not affect the Federal enforceability of the measures in the subject
SIP revision nor prevent state implementation of these measures. The
legal effects of the final limited disapproval are to provide EPA the
authority to issue a FIP at any time, and to obligate the Agency to
take such action no more than two years after the effective date of the
final limited disapproval action.

V. What is EPA's analysis of West Virginia's regional haze submittal?

    On June 18, 2008, WVDEP submitted revisions to the West Virginia
SIP to address regional haze in the State's Class I areas as required
by EPA's RHR.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    West Virginia has two Class I areas within its borders: Dolly Sods
Wilderness Area and Otter Creek Wilderness Area. West Virginia
determined the appropriate RPGs, including consulting with other states
that impact these two Class I areas. West Virginia is responsible for
describing its own long-term emission strategies, its role in the
consultation processes, and how its particular state SIP meets the
other requirements in EPA's regional haze regulations.
    The West Virginia regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility
improvement at each of these Class I areas and a LTS to achieve those
RPGs within the first regional haze implementation period ending in
2018. In developing the LTS for each area, West Virginia considered
both emission sources inside and outside the state that may cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in West Virginia's Class I areas.
The State also identified and considered emission sources within West
Virginia that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class
I areas in neighboring states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The
VISTAS RPO worked with the State in developing the technical analyses
used to make these determinations, including state-by-state
contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which
included the two areas in West Virginia and those areas affected by
emissions from West Virginia.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, West Virginia calculated baseline/current and
natural visibility conditions for each of its Class I areas, as
summarized below.
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity.
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE
monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA
allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to 2003 EPA
guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural
visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is
to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural
concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to
use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the
IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\6\ The purpose of this
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light
extinction. West Virginia opted to use the default estimates for the
natural concentrations combined with the ``new IMPROVE equation,'' for
all of its areas. Using this approach, natural visibility conditions
using the new IMPROVE equation were calculated separately for each
Class I area by VISTAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs)
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to
aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review
of the science \7\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and
organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New
terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement
factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium
sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the
remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine
soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new
IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is
summarized in Appendix B.2 of the West Virginia Regional Haze
submittal and in numerous published papers. See for example: Hand,
J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for
Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report.
March 2006. Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative
Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado.
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 2006,
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to
Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis
Workgroup. September 2006 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    The Otter Creek Wilderness Area does not contain an IMPROVE
monitor. In cases where onsite monitoring is not available, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(2)(i) requires states to use the most representative
monitoring available for the 2000-2004 period to establish baseline
visibility conditions, in consultation with EPA. West Virginia used and
EPA concurs with the use of 2000-2004 data from the IMPROVE monitor at
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area for the Otter Creek Wilderness Area. The
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area is nearest to the Otter Creek Wilderness
Area and the areas possess similar characteristics, such as meteorology
and topography.
    WVDEP estimated baseline visibility conditions at both West
Virginia Class I

areas using available monitoring data from a single IMPROVE monitoring
site in the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area. For the first regional haze
SIP, baseline visibility conditions are the same as current conditions.
A five-year average of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated
for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days at
each West Virginia Class I area. IMPROVE data records for Dolly Sods
Wilderness Area for the period 2000 to 2004 meet the EPA requirements
for data completeness, see page 2-8 of EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress
Guidance. This data is also provided at the following Web site: http://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    For the West Virginia Class I areas, baseline visibility conditions
on the 20 percent worst days are approximately 30 deciviews (dv).
Natural visibility in these areas is predicted to be approximately 11
deciviews on the 20 percent worst days. The natural and baseline
conditions for West Virginia's Class I areas for both the 20 percent
worst and best days are presented in Table 1, below.

    Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for the West
                         Virginia Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Average for 20%
          Class I area             worst days  (dv)     Average for 20%
                                          \9\           best days  (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Natural Background Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area......                10.4                 3.6
Otter Creek Wilderness Area.....                10.4                 3.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000-2004)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area......                29.0                12.3
Otter Creek Wilderness Area.....                29.0                12.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled, ``Technical Support Document for
  the Modeling Portions of the State of West Virginia's Regional Haze
  State Implementation Plan (SIP)'' is included in the public docket for
  this action.

4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, West Virginia considered the uniform rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve
that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's
Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is
not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or
equivalent to the glidepath.
    The State's implementation plan presents a graph for the 20 percent
worst days, for its two Class I areas. West Virginia constructed the
graph for the worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in accordance with EPA's
2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line
from the baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the
level of visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment
in 2064 for its two areas. West Virginia's SIP shows that the State's
RPGs for its areas provide for improvement in visibility for the 20
percent worst days over the period of the implementation plan and
ensure no degradation in visibility for the 20 percent best days over
the same period, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    For the West Virginia Class I areas, the overall visibility
improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference
between baseline visibility of 29.0 deciviews for the 20 percent worst
days and natural conditions of 10.4 deciviews, i.e., 18.6 deciviews.
Over the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an
average improvement of 0.31 deciviews per year to reach natural
conditions. Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in order
to achieve visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform
rate of progress for the 20 percent worst days at Dolly Sods Wilderness
Area and the Otter Creek Wilderness Area, West Virginia would need to
project at least 4.3 deciviews over the first implementation period
(i.e., 0.31 deciviews x 14 years = 4.3 deciviews) of visibility
improvement from the 29.0 deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in
visibility levels at or below 24.7 deciviews in 2018. West Virginia
projects a 7.3 deciview improvement to visibility from the 29.0
deciview baseline to 21.7 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most
impaired days, and a 1.2 deciview improvement to 11.1 deciviews from
the baseline visibility of 12.3 deciviews for the 20 percent least
impaired days.

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

    The LTS is a compilation of state-specific control measures relied
on by the state for achieving its RPGs. West Virginia's LTS for the
first implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from
Federal, State, and Local controls that take effect in the State from
the end of the baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The West
Virginia LTS was developed by the State, in coordination with the
VISTAS RPO, through an evaluation of the following components: (1)
Identification of the emission units within West Virginia and in
surrounding states that likely have the largest impacts currently on
visibility at the State's two Class I areas; (2) estimation of
emissions reductions for 2018 based on all controls required or
expected under Federal and State regulations for the 2004-2018 period
(including BART); (3) comparison of projected visibility improvement
with the uniform rate of progress for the State's Class I areas; and
(4) application of the four statutory factors in the reasonable
progress analysis for the identified emission units to determine if
additional reasonable controls were required.
    CAIR is also an element of West Virginia's LTS. CAIR rule revisions
were approved into the West Virginia SIP in 2007 and 2009. See 72 FR
71576 (December 18, 2007 and 74 FR 38536 (August 4, 2009). West
Virginia opted to rely on CAIR emission reduction requirements to
satisfy the BART requirements for SO2 and NOX
from EGUs. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore, West Virginia only
required its BART-eligible EGUs to evaluate PM emissions for
determining whether they are subject to BART, and, if applicable,

for performing a BART control assessment. Additionally, West Virginia
concluded that no additional controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for
reasonable progress for its EGUs for this first implementation period.
Prior to the remand of CAIR, EPA believed the State's reliance on CAIR
for specific BART and reasonable progress provisions affecting its EGUs
was adequate, as detailed later in this notice. As explained in section
VI of this notice, the EPA proposes today to issue a limited approval
and a proposed limited disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP
revision.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from West Virginia.
The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions
and applying reductions expected from Federal and State regulations
affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants
NOX, PM, and SO2. The BART Guidelines direct
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3
impair visibility in their Class I area(s). VISTAS performed modeling
sensitivity analyses, which demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions
of VOC and NH3 do not significantly impair visibility in the
VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions inventories were also developed
for NH3 and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC reductions were
incorporated into West Virginia's regional haze analyses, West Virginia
did not further evaluate NH3 and VOC emissions sources for
potential controls under BART or reasonable progress.
    VISTAS developed emissions for five inventory source
classifications: Stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-
road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point sources are
those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year,
depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the facility level.
Stationary area sources are those sources whose individual emissions
are relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the
collective emissions from the source category could be significant.
VISTAS estimated emissions on a countywide level for the inventory
categories of: (a) Stationary area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road)
mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can move but does not use the
roadways); and (c) biogenic sources (which are natural sources of
emissions, such as trees). On-road mobile source emissions are
estimated by vehicle type and road type, and are summed to the
countywide level.
    There are many Federal and State control programs being implemented
that VISTAS and West Virginia anticipate will reduce emissions between
the end of the baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these
control programs are projected to achieve substantial visibility
improvement by 2018 in the West Virginia Class I areas. The control
programs relied upon by West Virginia include CAIR; the NOX
SIP Call; North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act; Georgia multi-
pollutant rule; consent agreements for Santee Cooper, Tampa Electric,
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Gulf Power, East Kentucky Power
Cooperative, Dupont, West Point Paper Mill, Alabama Power, American
Electric Power; Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel (2007) engine standards
for on-road trucks and busses; Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for on-
road vehicles; Federal large spark ignition and recreational vehicle
controls; and EPA's non-road diesel rules.
    Controls from various Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) rules were also utilized in the development of the 2018 emission
inventory projections. These MACT rules include the industrial boiler/
process heater MACT (referred to as ``Industrial Boiler MACT''), the
combustion turbine and reciprocating internal combustion engines MACTs,
and the VOC 2, 4, 7, and 10-year MACT standards.
    On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals mandated the
vacatur and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\8\ This MACT was
vacated since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Definition
Rule. Notwithstanding the vacatur of this rule, the VISTAS states,
including West Virginia, decided to leave these controls in the
modeling for their regional haze SIPs since it is believed that by
2018, EPA will have re-promulgated an industrial boiler MACT rule or
the states will have addressed the issue through state-level case-by-
case MACT reviews in accordance with section 112(j) of the CAA. EPA
finds this approach acceptable for the following reasons. EPA proposed
a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on June 4,
2010 (75 FR 32006), and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011 (76 FR
15608), giving West Virginia time to assure the required controls are
in place prior to the end of the first implementation period in 2018.
In the absence of an established MACT rule for boilers and process
heaters, the statutory language in section 112(j) of the CAA specifies
a schedule for the incorporation of enforceable MACT-equivalent limits
into the title V operating permits of affected sources. Should
circumstances warrant the need to implement section 112(j) of the CAA
for industrial boilers, we would expect, in this case, that compliance
with case-by-case MACT limits for industrial boilers would occur no
later than January 2015, which is well before the 2018 RPGs for
regional haze. In addition, the RHR requires that any resulting
differences between emissions projections and actual emissions
reductions that may occur will be addressed during the five-year review
prior to the next 2018 regional haze SIP. The expected reductions due
to the original, vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule were relatively
small compared to the State's total SO2, PM2.5,
and coarse particulate matter (PM10) emissions in 2018
(i.e., 0.5 to 1.5 percent, depending on the pollutant, of the projected
2018 SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 inventory),
and not likely to affect any of West Virginia's modeling conclusions.
Thus, if there is a need to address discrepancies such that projected
emissions reductions from the now-vacated Industrial Boiler MACT were
greater than actual reductions achieved by the replacement MACT, we
would not expect that this would affect the adequacy of the existing
West Virginia regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Below, in Tables 2 and 3, are summaries of the 2002 baseline and
2018 estimated emission inventories for West Virginia.

                           Table 2--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for West Virginia
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   VOC        NH3        PM10      PM2.5       NOX        SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................     15,775        453     22,076     15,523    277,589    570,153
Area..........................................     60,443      9,963    115,346     21,049     12,687     11,667
On-Road Mobile................................     45,284      2,036      1,481      1,068     63,525      2,635
Non-Road Mobile...............................     18,566          9      1,850      1,728     33,329      2,112
Biogenics.....................................    357,850        N/A        N/A        N/A      2,776        N/A
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................    499,976     12,461    143,771     42,385    390,703    586,568
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* N/A--Not applicable.

                           Table 3--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for West Virginia
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   VOC        NH3        PM10      PM2.5       NOX        SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................     17,952        593     28,084     20,165     94,600    177,517
Area (includes fires).........................     62,806     11,504    124,566     24,507     15,716     12,849
On-Road Mobile................................     14,652      2,268        747        369     15,530        231
Non-road Mobile...............................     14,086         13      1,292      1,198     25,710         56
Biogenics.....................................    357,850        N/A        N/A        N/A      2,776        N/A
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................    467,347     14,377    154,688     46,239    154,332    190,653
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
    VISTAS performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 10
southeastern states, including West Virginia. The modeling analysis is
a complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the
modeling system. VISTAS used the following modeling system:
     Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model
is a nonhydrostatic, prognostic meteorological model routinely used for
urban- and regional-scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional
haze regulatory modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions modeling system is an emissions modeling system that
generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of mobile, non-road
mobile, area, point, fire and biogenic emission sources for
photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model
capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a
regional scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was
CMAQ, version 4.5. It was modified through VISTAS with a module for
Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open and transparent manner that was
also subjected to outside peer review.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the VISTAS region for 2002 and
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12 x 12 kilometer (km) cells that
covers the 10 VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West
Virginia) and states adjacent to them. This grid is nested within a
larger national CMAQ modeling grid of 36 x 36 km grid cells that covers
the continental United States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and
portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the east and west
coasts. Selection of a representative period of meteorology is crucial
for evaluating baseline air quality conditions and projecting future
changes in air quality due to changes in emissions of visibility-
impairing pollutants. VISTAS conducted an in-depth analysis which
resulted in the selection of the entire year of 2002 (January 1-
December 31) as the best period of meteorology available for conducting
the CMAQ modeling. The VISTAS states modeling was developed consistent
with EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze, located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/B-07-
002), April 2007, and EPA document, Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, located at
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001,
August 2005, updated November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
    VISTAS examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone,
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks
and databases for the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a diverse set of
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once VISTAS determined the model
performance to be acceptable, VISTAS used the model to assess the 2018
RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of West Virginia
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and
modeling used to

develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are consistent with EPA's
RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA accepts the
VISTAS technical modeling to support the LTS and determine visibility
improvement for the uniform rate of progress because the modeling
system was chosen and simulated according to EPA Modeling Guidance.
EPA's analysis of VISTAS modeling procedures and results is in the
accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD).\9\ EPA agrees with the
VISTAS model performance procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is
an appropriate tool for the regional haze assessments for the West
Virginia LTS and regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled, ``Technical Support
Document for the Modeling Portions of the State of West Virginia's
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)'' is included in the
public docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, Source
Categories, and Geographic Areas
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further
reducing emissions from different pollutants, source sectors, and
geographic areas, VISTAS developed emission sensitivity model runs
using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various
groups of emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the
20 percent worst visibility days.
    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting
visibility in the VISTAS region, VISTAS' contribution assessment, based
on IMPROVE monitoring data, demonstrated that ammonium sulfate is the
major contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at
Class I areas in the VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 20 percent
worst visibility days in 2000-2004, ammonium sulfate accounted for
greater than 70 percent of the calculated light extinction at Class I
areas in the Southern Appalachians. In particular, for Dolly Sods
Wilderness Area, sulfate particles resulting from SO2
emissions contribute roughly 80 percent to the calculated light
extinction on the haziest days. In contrast, ammonium nitrate
contributed less than five percent of the calculated light extinction
at VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
Particulate organic matter (organic carbon) accounted for 10-20 percent
of light extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
    VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas into two types, either
``coastal'' or ``inland'' (sometimes referred to as ``mountain'')
sites, based on common/similar characteristics (e.g. terrain,
geography, meteorology), to better represent variations in model
sensitivity and performance within the VISTAS region, and to describe
the common factors influencing visibility conditions in the two types
of Class I areas. West Virginia's Class I areas are both ``inland''
areas.
    Results from VISTAS' emission sensitivity analyses indicate that
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions are the
dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst
days at all Class I areas in VISTAS, including the two West Virginia
areas. West Virginia concluded that reducing SO2 emissions
from EGU and non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS states would have the
greatest visibility benefits for the West Virginia Class I areas.
Because ammonium nitrate is a small contributor to PM2.5
mass and visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst days at the
inland Class I areas in VISTAS, which include Dolly Sods Wilderness
Area and Otter Creek Wilderness Area, the benefits of reducing
NOX and NH3 emissions at these sites are small.
    The VISTAS sensitivity analyses show that VOC emissions from
biogenic sources such as vegetation also contribute to visibility
impairment. However, control of these biogenic sources of VOC would be
extremely difficult, if not impossible. The anthropogenic sources of
VOC emissions are minor compared to the biogenic sources. Therefore,
controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions would have little if
any visibility benefits at the Class I areas in the VISTAS region,
including West Virginia. The sensitivity analyses also show that
reducing primary carbon from point sources, ground level sources, or
fires is projected to have small to no visibility benefit at the VISTAS
Class I areas.
    West Virginia considered the factors listed in 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v) to develop its LTS, as described below. West Virginia,
in conjunction with VISTAS, demonstrated in its SIP that elemental
carbon (a product of highway and non-road diesel engines, agricultural
burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires), fine soils (a product of
construction activities and activities that generate fugitive dust),
and ammonia are relatively minor contributors to visibility impairment
at the Class I areas in West Virginia. WVDEP is not adopting any
additional controls on agricultural fires, prescribed fires, and
wildfires, but does have a rule in place, Regulation 45CSR6--To Prevent
and Control Air Pollution from Combustion of Refuse (74 FR 12560, March
25, 2009), which adopted revisions to include a provision for
prescribed burning. In addition, the WVDEP has a number of rules in
place that require the control of fugitive dust within plant
boundaries, these include Regulation 45CSR2--To Prevent and Control
Particulate Air Pollution from Combustion of Fuel in Indirect Heat
Exchangers (68 FR 47473, August 11, 2003); Regulation 45CSR3--To
Prevent and Control Air Pollution from the Operation of Hot Mix Asphalt
Plants (67 FR 63270, October 11, 2002); Regulation 45CSR5--To Prevent
and Control Air Pollution from the Operation of Coal Preparation
Plants, Coal Handling Operations and Coal Refuse Disposal Areas (67 FR
62379, October 7, 2002); and Regulation 45CSR7--To Prevent and Control
Particulate Matter Air (68 FR 33010, June 3, 2003). EPA concurs with
the State's technical demonstration showing that elemental carbon, fine
soils, and ammonia are not significant contributors to visibility in
the State's Class I areas, and therefore, finds that West Virginia has
adequately satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by VISTAS predict that
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial
point sources will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, more than any other visibility-
impairing pollutant. Specific to West Virginia, the VISTAS sensitivity
analysis projects visibility benefits in Dolly Sods Wilderness Area and
Otter Creek Wilderness Area from SO2 reductions from EGUs in
eight of the 10 VISTAS states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Additional, smaller benefits are projected from SO2 emission
reductions from non-utility industrial point sources. SO2
emissions contributions to visibility impairment from other RPO regions
are comparatively small in contrast to the VISTAS states'
contributions, and thus, controlling sources outside of the VISTAS
region is predicted to provide less significant improvements in
visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS.
    Taking the VISTAS sensitivity analyses results into consideration,
West Virginia concluded that reducing SO2 emissions from EGU
and non-EGU point sources in certain VISTAS states would have the
greatest visibility benefits for the West Virginia Class I

areas. The State chose to focus solely on evaluating certain
SO2 sources contributing to visibility impairment to the
State's Class I areas for additional emission reductions for reasonable
progress in this first implementation period. EPA agrees with the
State's analyses and conclusions used to determine the pollutants and
source categories that most contribute to visibility impairment in the
West Virginia Class I areas, and finds the State's approach to focus on
developing a LTS that includes largely additional measures for point
sources of SO2 emissions to be appropriate.
    SO2 sources for which it is demonstrated that no
additional controls are reasonable in this current implementation
period will not be exempted from future assessments for controls in
subsequent implementation periods or, when appropriate, from the five-
year periodic SIP reviews. In future implementation periods, additional
controls on these SO2 sources evaluated in the first
implementation period may be determined to be reasonable, based on a
reasonable progress control evaluation, for continued progress toward
natural conditions for the 20 percent worst days and to avoid further
degradation of the 20 percent best days. Similarly, in subsequent
implementation periods, the State may use different criteria for
identifying sources for evaluation and may consider other pollutants as
visibility conditions change over time.
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls in West Virginia and Surrounding Areas
    Through comprehensive evaluations by VISTAS and the Southern
Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI),\10\ the VISTAS states
concluded that sulfate particles resulting from SO2
emissions account for the greatest portion of the regional haze
affecting the Class I areas in VISTAS states, including those in West
Virginia. Utility and non-utility boilers are the main sources of
SO2 emissions within the southeastern United States. VISTAS
developed a methodology for West Virginia, which enables the State to
focus its reasonable progress analysis on those geographic regions and
source categories that impact visibility at each of its Class I areas.
Recognizing that there was neither sufficient time nor adequate
resources available to evaluate all emission units within a given area
of influence (AOI) around each Class I area that West Virginia's
sources impact, the State established a threshold to determine which
emission units would be evaluated for reasonable progress control. In
applying this methodology, WVDEP first calculated the fractional
contribution to visibility impairment from all emission units within
the SO2 AOI for each of its Class I areas, and those
surrounding areas in other states potentially impacted by emissions
from emission units in West Virginia. The State then identified those
emission units with a contribution of one percent or more to the
visibility impairment at that particular Class I area, and evaluated
each of these units for control measures for reasonable progress, using
the following four ``reasonable progress factors'' as required under 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of compliance; (ii) time necessary for
compliance; (iii) energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (iv) remaining useful life of the emission unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated in a
voluntary regional partnership ``to identify and recommend
reasonable measures to remedy existing and prevent future adverse
effects from human-induced air pollution on the air quality related
values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.'' States cooperated
with FLMs, the USEPA, industry, environmental organizations, and
academia to complete a technical assessment of the impacts of acid
deposition, ozone, and fine particles on sensitive resources in the
Southern Appalachians. The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    West Virginia's SO2 AOI methodology captured greater
than 64 percent of the total point source SO2 contribution
to visibility impairment in the two Class I areas in West Virginia, and
required an evaluation of 17 emission units. Capturing a significantly
greater percentage of the total contribution would involve an
evaluation of many more emission units that have substantially less
impact. EPA believes the approach developed by VISTAS and implemented
for the Class I areas in West Virginia is a reasonable methodology to
prioritize the most significant contributors to regional haze and to
identify sources to assess for reasonable progress control in the
State's Class I areas. The approach is consistent with EPA's Reasonable
Progress Guidance. The technical approach of VISTAS and West Virginia
was objective and based on several analyses, which included a large
universe of emission units within and surrounding the State of West
Virginia and all of the 18 VISTAS Class I areas. It also included an
analysis of the VISTAS emission units affecting nearby Class I areas
surrounding the VISTAS states that are located in other RPOs' Class I
areas.
5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable Progress
Analysis
    WVDEP identified 17 EGU units with SO2 emissions that
were above the State's minimum threshold for reasonable progress
evaluation because they were modeled to fall within the sulfate AOI of
any Class I area and have a one percent or greater contribution to the
sulfate visibility impairment to at least one Class I area.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See also West Virginia SIP Appendix H fractional
contribution analysis tables for each Class I Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Facilities With an Emissions Unit Subject to Reasonable Progress
Analysis
    Only one facility was a non-EGU that was subject to the four factor
reasonable progress analysis. That facility is Capitol Cement which
showed a greater than 1% contribution to Shenandoah National Park in
Virginia. WVDEP analyzed whether SO2 controls should be
required for one facility, Capitol Cement, based on a consideration of
the four factors set out in the CAA and EPA's regulations. For the
limited purpose of evaluating the cost of compliance for the reasonable
progress assessment in this first regional haze SIP for the non-EGUs,
WVDEP concluded that it was not equitable to require non-EGUs to bear a
greater economic burden than EGUs for a given control strategy. Using
the CAIR rule as a guide, a cost of $2,000 per ton of SO2
controlled or reduced was used as a determiner of cost effectiveness.
    Capitol Cement is a portland cement manufacturing facility. Only
Kiln 7 at Capitol Cement was identified as requiring reasonable
progress analysis since Kilns 8 and 9 were replaced in 2002. WVDEP
determined that the new preheater kiln should also be reviewed with
respect to reasonable progress. VISTAS contracted with Alpine
Geophysics to evaluate control options and costs for sources within AOI
for the Class I areas of concern, including Capitol Cement. Alpine used
EPA's Air ControlNet software to evaluate control options and costs for
controls on Kiln 7. The control option identified was flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) with a cost effectiveness of $25,266 per ton,
which exceeds the State's $2,000 cost-effectiveness threshold for
reasonableness. For the precalciner system, the control options and
costs for controls were developed by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO through a contract with MACTEC, Inc.,
and published in the project report, Assessment of Reasonable Progress
for Regional Haze In MANE-VU Class I Areas, dated July

9, 2007. WVDEP used this report for considering other control options
and costs. The control options evaluated were Dry FGD, West FGD, and
Advanced FGD. The cost per ton of SO2 removed ranged from
$9,700-$72,800. All control options are well above the State's $2,000
cost-effectiveness threshold for reasonableness. The other statutory
factors: (1) Time of necessary for compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and (3) the remaining
useful life of the emissions unit, were deemed not applicable, since
there were no cost effective controls to evaluate.
    As noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, the states have
wide latitude to determine appropriate additional control requirements
for ensuring reasonable progress, and there are many ways for a state
to approach identification of additional reasonable measures. In
determining reasonable progress, states must consider, at a minimum,
the four statutory factors, but states have flexibility in how to take
these factors into consideration.
    West Virginia applied the methodology developed by VISTAS for
identifying appropriate sources to be considered for additional
controls under reasonable progress for the implementation period
addressed by this SIP, which ends in 2018. Using this methodology,
WVDEP first identified those emissions and emissions units most likely
to have an impact on visibility in the State's Class I areas. Units
with emissions of SO2 with a relative contribution to
visibility impairment of at least a one percent contribution at any
Class I area were then subject to further analysis to determine whether
it would be appropriate to require controls on these units for purposes
of reasonable progress. As noted above, of the emission units in West
Virginia, one unit was subject to this analysis. WVDEP concluded, based
on their evaluation of Capitol Cement, that no further controls were
warranted at this time.
    Having reviewed WVDEP's methodology and analyses presented in the
SIP materials prepared by WVDEP, EPA is proposing to approve West
Virginia's conclusion that no further controls are reasonable for this
implementation period for the reviewed sources. EPA agrees with the
State's approach of identifying the key pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment at its Class I areas, and consider their
methodology to identify sources of SO2 most likely to have
an impact on visibility on any Class I area, to be an appropriate
methodology for narrowing the scope of the State's analysis. In
general, EPA also finds West Virginia's evaluation of the four
statutory factors for reasonable progress to be reasonable. Although
the use of a specific threshold for assessing costs means that West
Virginia may not have fully considered other available emissions
reduction measures above their threshold, EPA believes that the West
Virginia SIP still ensures reasonable progress. EPA notes that given
the emissions reductions resulting from CAIR, West Virginia's BART
determinations, and the measures in nearby states, the visibility
improvements projected for the affected Class I areas are in excess of
that needed to be on the uniform rate of progress glidepath. In
considering West Virginia's approach, EPA is also proposing to place
great weight on the fact that there is no indication in the SIP
submittal that West Virginia, as a result of using a specific cost
effectiveness threshold, rejected potential reasonable progress
measures that would have had a meaningful impact on visibility in its
Class I areas. In addition, EPA finds that West Virginia fully
evaluated, in terms of the four reasonable progress factors, all
control technologies available at the time of its analysis and
applicable to these facilities.
b. Emission Units Exempted From Preparing a Reasonable Progress Control
Analysis
    Seventeen emission units identified for a reasonable progress
control analysis are EGUs. These EGUs are subject to CAIR and were also
found to be subject to BART. These EGUs are Allegheny Energy--Ft.
Martin, Harrison, and Pleasants; AEP-Appalachian Power-John Amos and
Mountaineer; and Dominion-Mt. Storm.
    To determine whether any additional controls beyond those required
by CAIR would be considered reasonable for West Virginia's EGUs for
this first implementation period, WVDEP evaluated the SO2
reductions expected from the EGU sector. The EGUs located in West
Virginia are expected to reduce their 2002 SO2 emissions by
approximately 78 percent by 2018. WVDEP believes it has an accurate
understanding of where EGU emission reductions will occur in West
Virginia based upon existing and planned installations of post
combustion controls for the afore mentioned EGUs, that are or will be
controlled with greater than 90% efficiency.
    To further evaluate whether CAIR requirements will satisfy
reasonable progress for SO2 for EGUs, WVDEP considered the
four reasonable progress factors set forth in EPA's RHR as they apply
to the State's entire EGU sector for available control technologies.
The State also reviewed CAIR requirements that include 2015 as the
``earliest reasonable deadline for compliance'' for EGUs installing
retrofits, see (70 FR 25162, 25197-25198, May 12, 2005). This is a
particularly relevant consideration because CAIR addresses the
reasonable progress factors of cost and time necessary for compliance.
In the preamble to CAIR, EPA recognized there are a number of factors
that influence compliance with the emission reduction requirements set
forth in CAIR, which make the 2015 compliance date reasonable. For
example, each EGU retrofit requires a large pool of specialized labor
resources, which exist in limited quantities. In addition, retrofitting
an EGU is a very capital-intensive venture and, therefore, undertaken
with caution. Hence, allowing retrofits to be installed over time
enables the industry to learn from early installations. Lastly, EGU
retrofits over time minimize disruption of the power grid by enabling
industry to take advantage of planned outages.
    Since EPA made the determination in CAIR that the earliest
reasonable deadline for compliance for reducing emissions was 2015,
WVDEP concluded that the emission reductions required by CAIR
constitute reasonable measures for West Virginia EGUs during this first
assessment period (between baseline and 2018). In addition, WVDEP notes
that while the reasonable progress evaluation only applies to existing
sources, the State will continue to follow the visibility analysis
requirements as part of all new major source new source review (NSR)
and PSD permitting actions.
    Prior to the CAIR remand by the D.C. Circuit, EPA believed the
State's demonstration that no additional controls beyond CAIR are
reasonable for SO2 for affected EGUs for the first
implementation period to be acceptable on the basis that the CAIR
requirements, reflected the most cost-effective controls that can be
achieved over the CAIR SO2 compliance timeframe, which spans
out to 2015. However, the State's demonstration regarding CAIR and
reasonable progress for EGUs, and other provisions in this SIP
revision, are based on CAIR and thus, the Agency proposes today to
issue a limited approval and a limited disapproval of the State's
regional haze SIP revision.
6. BART
    BART is an element of West Virginia's LTS for the first
implementation period. The BART evaluation process consists

of three components: (a) An identification of all the BART-eligible
sources, (b) an assessment of whether the BART-eligible sources are
subject to BART, and (c) a determination of the BART controls. These
components, as addressed by WVDEP and WVDEP's findings, are discussed
below.
a. BART-Eligible Sources
    The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. WVDEP identified the
BART-eligible sources in West Virginia by utilizing the three
eligibility criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's
regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emission units at the
facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART
Guidelines; (2) emission unit(s) was constructed on or after August 6,
1962, and was in existence prior to August 6, 1977; and (3) potential
emissions of any visibility-impairing pollutant from subject units are
250 tons or more per year.
    The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO2,
NOX and direct PM (including both PM10 and
PM2.5) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants, and to
exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from
a source impair visibility in an area (70 FR 39160). VISTAS modeling
demonstrated that VOC from anthropogenic sources and ammonia from point
sources are not significant visibility-impairing pollutants in West
Virginia. WVDEP has determined, based on the VISTAS modeling, that VOC
and ammonia emissions from the State's point sources are not
anticipated to cause or contribute significantly to any impairment of
visibility in Class I areas and should be exempt for BART purposes.
b. BART-Subject Sources
    The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the
BART Guidelines, West Virginia required each of its BART-eligible
sources to develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent
of their contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I
areas.
    The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF \12\ modeling
system or another appropriate model to predict the visibility impacts
from a single source on a Class I area, and to therefore, determine
whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is subject to
BART.'' The Guidelines state that EPA believes CALPUFF is the best
regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting a
single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162).
West Virginia, in coordination with VISTAS, used the CALPUFF modeling
system to determine whether individual sources in West Virginia were
subject to or exempt from BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST,
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF
modeling system are available from the model developer on the
following Web site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling
protocol for making individual source attributions, and suggest that
states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues
prior to modeling. The VISTAS states, including West Virginia,
developed a ``Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART
Analyses.'' Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources,
trade groups, and other interested parties, actively participated in
the development and review of the VISTAS protocol. VISTAS developed a
post-processing approach to use the new IMPROVE equation with the
CALPUFF model results so that the BART analyses could consider both the
old and new IMPROVE equations.
    For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``A single source that
is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered
to `cause' visibility impairment.'' The BART Guidelines also state that
``the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source
`contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across
states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for
determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' The Guidelines affirm that
states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the
location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a
Class I area justifies this approach.
    West Virginia used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for
determining which sources are subject to BART. EPA agrees with the
State's rationale for choosing this threshold value. The results of the
visibility impacts modeling demonstrated that the majority of the
individual BART-eligible sources had visibility impacts well below 0.5
deciview.
    West Virginia initially identified twenty-two BART-eligible
sources. The State subsequently determined that nineteen sources are
exempt from being considered BART-eligible. Nineteen of the twenty-two
sources were able to demonstrate exemptions with modeling
demonstrations. Table 4 identifies the nineteen BART-exempt facilities
located in West Virginia, and identifies the three sources subject to
BART.

    Table 4--West Virginia BART-Eligible and Subject-to-BART Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion--Mt. Storm.\13\
PPG Industries.
Capitol Cement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to BART
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU CAIR and BART Modeling Sources:
  AEP-Appalachian Power Co.--John Amos.
  AEP-Ohio Power Co.--Mitchell.
  AEP-Appalachian Power Co.--Mountaineer.
  Allegheny Energy--Ft. Martin.
  Allegheny Energy--Harrison.
  Allegheny Energy--Pleasants.
Non-EGU BART Modeling:
  Mittal Steel USA--Weirton, Inc.
  Mountain State Carbon.
  ERGON Corp.--West Virginia, Inc.
  Century Aluminum.
  DuPont Belle.
  Clearon.
  Pocahontas Coal Co.--Eastern Gulf Prep Plant.
  GE Woodmark.
  Pinnacle Mining--No. 50 Coal Prep Plant.
  Kepler Processing.
  Bayer.

  Columbia Chemicals.
  Cabot Corporation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    West Virginia found that three of its BART-eligible sources (i.e.,
Dominion--Mt. Storm, PPG Industries, and Capitol Cement) had modeled
visibility impacts of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold for BART
exemption. These three facilities are considered to be subject to BART
and submitted State permit applications including their proposed BART
determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. West Virginia
relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX
for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus,
SO2 and NOX were not analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although PPG Industries initially modeled a visibility impact
greater than 0.5 deciviews on multiple Class I areas, PPG Industries
elected to accept a permit limit on its BART eligible unit, which
reduces its visibility impact to below the exemption threshold of 0.5
deciviews of impact at any Class I area. Therefore, PPG Industries is
now considered BART exempt.
    The remaining nineteen sources demonstrated that they are exempt
from being subject to BART by modeling less than a 0.5 deciview
visibility impact at the affected Class I areas. The seven BART-
eligible EGUs only modeled PM10 emissions because West
Virginia relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and
NOX for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). Six out of the seven EGUs modeling demonstrated that
PM10 emissions do not contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area. Modeling at the Dominion--Mt. Storm, on the other
hand, demonstrated that its PM10 emissions exceeded the 0.5
deciview contribution threshold and thus, required a BART analysis.
Prior to the CAIR remand, the State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART
for NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs was fully
approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, as
explained in section IV of this notice, the BART assessments for CAIR
EGUs for NOX and SO2 and other provisions in this
SIP revision are based on CAIR, and thus, the Agency proposes today to
issue a limited approval and a limited disapproval of the State's June
18, 2008, regional haze SIP revision.
c. BART Determinations
    Dominion--Mt. Storm has modeled visibility impacts of more than the
0.5 deciview threshold for BART exemption and, therefore, is considered
to be subject to BART for PM10 only. Capitol Cement did not
submit an exemption modeling demonstration because the BART unit is
scheduled to be replaced. Since these two facilities did not
demonstrate that they are exempt from BART, each one submitted to the
State, permit applications that included their proposed BART
determinations.
    In accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine the level of
control that represents BART for each source, the State first reviewed
existing controls on these units to assess whether these constituted
the best controls currently available, then identified what other
technically feasible controls are available, and finally, evaluated the
technically feasible controls using the five BART statutory factors.
The State's evaluations and conclusions, and EPA's assessment, are
summarized below.
    Dominion--Mt. Storm is an EGU containing three BART-subject units
and is only subject to BART for PM10. Units 1, 2, and 3 are
subject to BART. The current PM controls of electrostatic precipitator
(ESP) and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) were determined to satisfy
BART, however, the allowable PM10 emission rate was lowered
from 0.05 pounds per million british thermal units (lb/mmBtu) to 0.03
lb/mmBtu, resulting in a reduction of up to 508 tons per year (tpy) per
unit, or maximum reduction of 1524 tpy. The EPS and FGD must aggregate
99.5 percent PM10 removal efficiency. The compliance date
for Dominion--Mt. Storm is December 13, 2007 for BART controls.
    The three emission units at Dominion--Mt. Storm are also subject to
the EPA CAIR. Dominion--Mt. Storm has already installed scrubbers and
NOX controls on the emission units at this facility. West
Virginia has opted to rely on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2
and NOX for its EGUs subject to CAIR, as allowed by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4).
    Once the BART limits are established, the source is then required
by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(v) to maintain the control equipment required
and establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated
and maintained. For Dominion--Mt. Storm, Units 1, 2, and 3 are required
to calculate the potential particulate matter emissions on a daily
basis using the monitoring procedures and calculation methodology
outlined in Regulation 45 CSR 2's monitoring plan. Dominion--Mt. Storm
shall record any instance of calculated emissions in excess of the
limits given above and any corrective actions taken. Dominion--Mt.
Storm shall also maintain and operate, at all reasonable times,
appropriate equipment on the ESP and FGD, to continuously monitor the
performance of each control device. PM10 testing is done in
accordance with the schedule listed in Regulation 45 CSR 2.
    EPA agrees with WVDEP's analyses and conclusions for the BART
emission units located at Dominion--Mt. Storm. EPA has reviewed the
West Virginia analyses and concluded they were conducted in a manner
that is consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines. Therefore, the
conclusions reflect a reasonable application of EPA's guidance to this
source.
    PPG Industries elected to accept a permit limit on its BART
eligible unit which reduces its visibility impact to below the
exemption threshold of 0.5 deciview impact at any Class I area.
Therefore, PPG is considered BART exempt. PPG Industries has taken a
BART limit of 1478.8 pounds per hour (lbs/hour) on Boiler 5 and the
total SO2 emissions from Boilers 3, 4, and 5 shall not
exceed 3766.8 lbs/hour. PPG Industries is required to get 4690.56 tpy
of SO2 emission reductions from Boiler 5 by May 1, 2008. EPA
agrees with WVDEP's conclusion that PPG Industries is now BART-exempt
based on the threshold of 0.5 deciview impact sited in EPA's BART
guidance.
    Capitol Cement is a Portland cement manufacturing facility located
in Martinsburg, WV that previously applied for and had been granted a
PSD permit. The PSD permit was for the replacement of two existing long
wet process cement kilns and associated clinker coolers with a modern
precalciner system and associated equipment. The only BART-eligible
unit at the facility, Kiln 9, is one of the two kilns being replaced,
and the permit includes a requirement for the permanent shutdown of the
existing kilns.
    WVDEP has determined no additional controls would need to be
installed on Kiln 9 since the PSD permit requires a permanent shutdown
of the existing kiln by the BART compliance deadline, or when full-
production was achieved with the replacement kiln, or no later than 180
days after startup. The modifications at Capitol Cement are expected to
result in 1741.51 tpy of SO2 reductions, 1374.81 tpy of
NOX reductions, and 66.01 tpy of PM10 reductions.
EPA agrees with WVDEP's conclusions for BART for the Capitol Cement
facility: That no additional controls need to be installed prior to
permanent shutdown of Kiln 9.
    The BART determinations for each of the facilities discussed above
and the resulting BART emission limits were

adopted by West Virginia into the State's regional haze SIP. WVDEP
incorporated the BART emission limits into state operating permits, and
submitted these permits as part of the State's regional haze SIP. The
BART limits adopted in the SIP are as follows: For Dominion--Mt. Storm,
an allowable PM10 emission rate of 0.03lb/mmBtu for Units 1,
2, and 3; for PPG Industries, a limit of 1478.8 lbs/hr for Boiler 5;
and for Capitol Cement, to shutdown Kiln 9 within 180 days of startup
of the new preheater-precalciner kiln, or when full-production is
achieved with the replacement kiln, or before BART Compliance deadline,
whichever comes first. The BART compliance dates West Virginia has set
in their June 18, 2008 Regional Haze Submittal comply with the BART
Rule requiring controls be implemented no later than five years after
publication in the Federal Register for the U.S. EPA Final Approval of
the West Virginia Regional Haze SIP.
7. RPGs
    The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish RPGs
for each Class I area within the state (expressed in deciviews) that
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility.
VISTAS modeled visibility improvements under existing Federal and State
regulations for the period 2004-2018, and additional control measures
which the VISTAS states planned to implement in the first
implementation period. At the time of VISTAS modeling, some of the
other states with sources potentially impacting visibility at the West
Virginia Class I areas had not yet made final control determinations
for BART and/or reasonable progress, and thus, these controls were not
included in the modeling submitted by West Virginia. Any controls
resulting from those determinations will provide additional emissions
reductions and resulting visibility improvement, which give further
assurances that West Virginia will achieve its RPGs. This modeling
demonstrates that the 2018 base control scenario provides for an
improvement in visibility better than the uniform rate of progress for
both of the West Virginia's Class I areas for the most impaired days
over the period of the implementation plan and ensures no degradation
in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.
    As shown in Table 5 below, West Virginia's RPGs for the 20 percent
worst days provide greater visibility improvement by 2018 than the
uniform rate of progress for the State's Class I areas. Also, the RPGs
for the 20 percent best days provide greater visibility improvement by
2018 than current best day conditions. The modeling supporting the
analysis of these RPGs is consistent with EPA guidance prior to the
CAIR remand. The regional haze provisions specify that a state may not
adopt a RPG that represents less visibility improvement than is
expected to result from other CAA requirements during the
implementation period. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the CAIR
states with Class I areas, like West Virginia, took into account
emission reductions anticipated from CAIR in determining their 2018
RPGs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas similarly
relied on CAIR emission reductions within the state to address some
or all of their contribution to visibility impairment in other
states' Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area state(s) used
to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). Certain surrounding non-
CAIR states also relied on reductions due to CAIR in nearby states
to develop their regional haze SIP submittals.

                                                               Table 5--West Virginia RPGs
                                                                     [In deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2018 Reasonable                                                   2018 Reasonable
                                                                   progress goal,  20%     Uniform rate of                           progress goal,  20%
               Class I area                 Baseline visibility,       worst days         progress at 2018,   Baseline visibility,        best days
                                               20% worst days       (improvement from      20% worst days         20% best days       (improvement from
                                                                        baseline)                                                         baseline)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area................                  29.0            21.7 (7.3)                  24.7                  12.3            11.1 (1.2)
Otter Creek Wilderness Area...............                  29.0            21.7 (7.3)                  24.7                  12.3            11.1 (1.2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPGs for the Class I areas in West Virginia are based on
modeled projections of future conditions that were developed using the
best available information at the time the analysis was done. These
projections can be expected to change as additional information
regarding future conditions becomes available. For example, new sources
may be built, existing sources may shut down or modify production in
response to changed economic circumstances, and facilities may change
their emission characteristics as they install control equipment to
comply with new rules. It would be both impractical and resource-
intensive to require a state to continually adjust the RPG every time
an event affecting these future projections changed.
    EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement to meet a long-
term goal based on modeled projections of future visibility conditions,
and addressed the uncertainties associated with RPGs in several ways.
EPA made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory goal (64 FR
35733). At the same time, EPA established a requirement for a midcourse
review and, if necessary, correction of the states' regional haze
plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls for a five-
year progress review after submittal of the initial regional haze plan.
The purpose of this progress review is to assess the effectiveness of
emission management strategies in meeting the RPG and to provide an
assessment of whether current implementation strategies are sufficient
for the state or affected states to meet their RPGs. If a state
concludes, based on its assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I area
will not be met, the RHR requires the state to take appropriate action.
See 40 CFR 52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate action will depend
on the basis for the state's conclusion that the current strategies are
insufficient to meet the RPGs.
    EPA anticipates that the Transport Rule will result in similar or
better improvements in visibility than predicted from CAIR. Because the
Transport Rule is not final, however, we do not know at this time how
it will affect any individual Class I area and cannot accurately model
future conditions based on its implementation. By the time West
Virginia is required to undertake its five year progress review,

however, it is likely that the impact of the Transport Rule and other
measures can be meaningfully assessed. If, in particular Class I areas,
the Transport Rule does not provide similar or greater benefits than
CAIR and meeting the RPGs at one of its Federal Class I Areas is in
jeopardy, the State will be required to address this circumstance in
its five year review. Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve West
Virginia's RPGs for the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area and the Otter Creek
Wilderness Area.

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements

    EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for the RHR. Under EPA's RAVI
regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral
vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral
vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the
mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama
located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.''
Visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area includes any integral
vista associated with that area. The FLMs did not identify any integral
vistas in West Virginia. In addition, neither Class I area in West
Virginia is experiencing RAVI, nor are any of its sources affected by
the RAVI provisions. Thus, the June 18, 2008, West Virginia regional
haze SIP submittal does not explicitly address the two requirements
regarding coordination of the regional haze with the RAVI LTS and
monitoring provisions. However, West Virginia previously made a
commitment to address RAVI should the FLM certify visibility impairment
from an individual source.\15\ EPA finds that this regional haze
submittal appropriately supplements and augments West Virginia's RAVI
visibility provisions to address regional haze by updating the
monitoring and LTS provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ West Virginia also submitted a SIP revision addressing PSD
that EPA approved on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64470) and NSR that EPA
approved on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64468).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 18, 2008 submittal, WVDEP updated its visibility
monitoring program and developed a LTS to address regional haze. Also