[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 17, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50593-50594]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17407]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0528; FRL-10113-01-R3]

Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; 2021 Amendments to West
Virginia's Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of West Virginia. This revision updates West Virginia's
incorporation by reference of EPA's national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) and the associated monitoring reference and
equivalent methods. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 16,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2022-0528 at www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serena Nichols, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1600 John F. Kennedy
Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2852. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Nichols can also be reached via electronic mail
at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 11, 2021 the West Virginia Department
of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP
pertaining to the amendments of Legislative Rule, 45CSR8--Ambient Air
Quality Standards. The SIP submittal updates West Virginia's
incorporation by reference of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA and found at
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 50 and ambient air monitoring
reference methods and equivalent methods promulgated by EPA and found
at 40 CFR part 53 into West Virginia's legislative rules.

I. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    WVDEP has historically chosen to incorporate by reference the
Federal NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 50, and the associated Federal
ambient air monitoring reference methods and equivalent methods for
these NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 53. When incorporating by reference
these Federal regulations, WVDEP has specified that it is incorporating
by reference these regulations as they existed on a certain date. The
incorporation by reference of the NAAQS that is currently approved in
the West Virginia SIP incorporates by reference 40 CFR parts 50 and 53
as they existed on June 1, 2019. West Virginia's May 11, 2021 SIP
revision updates the State's incorporation by reference of the primary
and secondary NAAQS and the ambient air monitoring reference and
equivalent methods, found in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53, respectively, as
of June 1, 2020. Since the last West Virginia incorporation by
reference of June 1, 2019, EPA: (1) designated one new equivalent
method for measuring concentrations of ozone in ambient air; (2)
designated one new reference method for measuring concentrations of

nitrogen dioxide; (3) amended an existing reference method for
measuring particulate matter (PM10) in ambient air; (4)
designated on new reference method for measuring concentrations of
sulfur dioxide in ambient air; (5) designated one new equivalent method
for measuring concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in ambient air. See 84
FR 44299 (August 23, 2019), 84 FR 50833 (September 26, 2019), 85 FR
5958 (February 2, 2020), 85 FR 27221 (May 7, 2020).
    The amendments to the legislative rule include changes to section
45-8-1 (General), 45-8-2 (Definitions), and 45-8-3 (Adoption of
Standards). The amendments update West Virginia's incorporation by
reference of the primary and secondary NAAQS and the ambient air
monitoring reference and equivalent methods from June 1, 2019 to June
1, 2020. West Virginia is incorporating the Federal rules in 40 CFR
parts 50 and 53 as they existed on June 1, 2020 into 45-8-1 and 45-8-3.
The amendment to section 45-8-2 changes the wording of the definition
of both the CAA and ``Secretary.''

II. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the West Virginia SIP revision of May
11, 2021, updating the incorporation by reference of EPA's NAAQS and
associated ambient air monitoring reference methods and equivalent
methods. EPA is soliciting public comments on the update to West
Virginia's incorporation by reference. Please note that EPA is not
seeking public comment on the level of the NAAQS which West Virginia
incorporated by reference into its regulations. An opportunity for
public comment on the level of each individual NAAQS was given when EPA
proposed each such NAAQS. Relevant comments will be considered before
taking final action.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference 45CSR8, as effective on June 1, 2021, discussed in section I.
Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis, of this preamble. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
    Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address,
as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, proposing to approve the West
Virginia SIP revision updating its incorporation by reference of EPA's
NAAQS and associated ambient air monitoring reference methods and
equivalent methods, does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2022-17407 Filed 8-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


70945 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 27, 2002 / Notices Washington, DC, 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0317. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA., Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0317. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the registration activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. Registration Application EPA received an application as follows to register a pesticide product containing an active ingredient not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provision of section 3( c)( 4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision by the Agency on the application.

Product Containing an Active Ingredient not Included in any Previously Registered Products File symbol: 56228   GU. Applicant: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 152, Riverdale, MD 20737. Product name: Acetaminophen For Brown Treesnake Control. Product type: Pesticide. Active ingredient: Contains 72.7% of the new active ingredient acetaminophen. Proposed classification/ Use: For control and reduction of brown treesnake abundance on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and to protect against brown treesnakes being exported to Hawaii or the Continental United States as hitchhikers in cargo.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

Dated: November 18, 2002. Debra Edwards, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 02   30122 Filed 11   26   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0310; FRL   7280   5]

Pesticide Product; Registration Approval AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces Agency approval of an application to register the pesticide product Bromuconazole Technical containing an active ingredient not included in any previously registered product pursuant to the provisions of section 3( c)( 5) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA), as amended. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Waller, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   9354; and e mail address: waller. mary@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS code 111)   Animal production ( NAICS code 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS code 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS code 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0310. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m.,

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 54 Nov 26, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27NON1. SGM 27NON1 70946 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 27, 2002 / Notices Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. In accordance with section 3( c)( 2) of FIFRA, a copy of the approved label, the list of data references, the data and other scientific information used to support registration, except for material specifically protected by section 10 of FIFRA, are also available for public inspection. Requests for data must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and must be addressed to the Freedom of Information Office ( A   101), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. The request should: Identify the product name and registration number andspecify the data or information desired. A paper copy of the fact sheet, which provides more detail on this registration, may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service ( NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Did EPA Approve the Application?

The Agency approved the application after considering all required data on risks associated with the proposed use of bromuconazole, and information on social, economic, and environmental benefits to be derived from use. Specifically, the Agency has considered the nature of the chemical and its pattern of use, application methods and rates, and level and extent of potential exposure. Based on these reviews, the Agency was able to make basic health and safety determinations which show that use of bromuconazole when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects to the environment. III. Approved Application EPA issued a notice, published in the Federal Register of May 10, 1994 ( 59 FR 24151) ( FRL   4770   4), which announced that Rhone Poulenc Ag Company had submitted an application to register the pesticide product Bromuconazole Technical ( EPA File Symbol 264   LUT), containing bromuconazole at 97.0%, an active ingredient not included in any previously registered product. The application was approved on September 30, 2002, as Bromuconazole Technical, a manufacturing use product for manufacturing, formulating and repackaging use ( EPA Registration Number 264   547).

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: November 16, 2002. Debra Edwards, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 02   30124 Filed 11   26   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0313; FRL   7280   9]

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and Federal Agency Crisis Declarations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) for use of pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions or denials were granted during the period July 1, 2002 until September 30, 2002 to control unforseen pest outbreaks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See each emergency exemption or denial for the name of a contact person. The following information applies to all contact persons: Team Leader, Emergency Response Team, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   9366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific. EPA has also listed denied emergency exemption requests in this notice.

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a federal or state government agency involved in administration of environmental quality programs ( i. e., Departments of Agriculture, Environment, etc). Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Federal or State Government Entity, ( NAICS 9241), i. e., Departments of Agriculture, Environment, etc. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0313. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 54 Nov 26, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27NON1. SGM 27NON1


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 15796]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05729]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of: Endeavor Power Corp.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

March 8, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Endeavor Power Corp. (``Endeavor Power''), quoted under the ticker
symbol EDVP, because of questions regarding the accuracy of assertions
in Endeavor Power's public filings and press releases relating to,
among other things, patents.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on
March 8, 2013 through 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 21, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Lynn M. Powalski,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05729 Filed 3-8-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P


                                                        Technical
Support Document for the Modeling Portions of the State of West
Virginia’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Entitled “West Virginia Regional Haze

State Implementation Plan to Preserve, Protect and Improve

Visibility in Class I Federal Areas

Final

June 2008”

TSD Prepared February, 2011

Todd A. Ellsworth

Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis, 3AP40

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

______________________/s/______________________

Reviewed by Walter Wilkie, Associate Director,

Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis (3AP40)

_________3/11/2011________

Date Signed

Technical Support Document for the Modeling Portions of the State of
West Virginia’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) Entitled
“West Virginia Regional Haze

State Implementation Plan to Preserve, Protect and Improve

Visibility in Class I Federal Areas

Final

June 2008”

Purpose of the Technical Support Document

This Technical Support Document (TSD) describes the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) evaluation of the modeling portions of
West Virginia’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision entitled
“West Virginia Regional Haze State Implementation Plan to Preserve,
Protect and Improve Visibility in Class I Federal Areas Final June
2008”.  This SIP revision will hereafter be referred to as the West
Virginia (WV) Haze SIP.

The purpose of this TSD is to provide more detailed information than can
be contained in the official notice published in the Federal Register.
Readers who need more information than we provide in this TSD or want to
review the modeling in more detail should read the above referenced West
Virginia Haze SIP.

The Regulatory Framework

In section 169A(a)(1) 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
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” (RAVI).  See 45 FR 80084.  These regulations represented
the first phase in addressing visibility impairment.  EPA deferred
action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until
monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships
between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues.  EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999
(see 64 FR 35713), the Regional Haze Rule (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.

The RHR addressed the combined visibility effects of various pollution
sources over a wide geographic region.  40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states
to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.  Consequently,
all 50 states, including those without Class I areas, Washington, D.C.,
and the Virgin Islands, are required to submit Regional Haze SIPs. The
USEPA designated five Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) to assist
with the coordination and cooperation needed to address the visibility
issue. West Virginia is among those states that make up the southeastern
portion of the contiguous United States known as VISTAS (Visibility
Improvement – State and Tribal Association of the Southeast), and
includes the eastern band of the Cherokee Indians in addition to the
following states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia (See Figure 1).
Studies show that West Virginia significantly contributes visibility
impairment in the following Class I areas: Dolly Sods Wilderness Area,
Otter Creek Wilderness Area, James River Face Wilderness Area, Linville
Gorge Wilderness Area, and Shenandoah National Park. With the help of
the Visibility Improvement - State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO, West Virginia has developed a SIP to address
visibility impairment in all of these Class I Federal Areas.   Figure 2
shows the 18 mandatory Federal Class I areas in the VISTAS Region.

Figure 1. Geographical Areas of Regional Planning Organizations

 Figure 2. Class I Areas in the VISTAS Region

Introduction to West Virginia’s Visibility State Implementation Plan
                    EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on
July 1, 1999 (see 64 FR 35713), the RHR.  The RHR addressed the combined
visibility effects of various pollution sources over a wide geographic
region.  40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.

This SIP was developed based on consultations and work-products of the
VISTAS Regional Planning Organization (RPO). It encompasses 1)
monitoring strategies for evaluating visibility impacts, 2) baselines
and trends, 3) long-term strategies (LTS), 4) how West Virginia meets
its fair share of the “reasonable progress goals” (RPG) towards
reducing visibility impairment in Class I areas, and 5) Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART).  VISTAS states agreed upon a ≥ 1 percent
sulfate attribution to a Class I area in order for an upwind state to
meet the definition of “significantly contributing” to visibility
impairment for that Class I area. Studies show that West Virginia
significantly contributes visibility impairment in the following Class I
areas: Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, Otter Creek Wilderness Area, James
River Face Wilderness Area, Linville Gorge Wilderness Area, and
Shenandoah National Park. Therefore, this SIP focuses on how West
Virginia’s control measures will improve visibility in these areas.

The West Virginia Division of Air Quality (WVDAQ) believes their Haze
SIP demonstrates that West Virginia has met its BART, RPG and LTS
obligations for the first visibility impairment planning period through
existing West Virginia/Federal regulations and on-the-books/on-the-way
federal emission controls. In addition to extensive consultation with
the VISTAS states, West Virginia has consulted with Federal Land
Managers (FLMs) responsible for the Class I areas, and the EPA in the
development of this SIP.

What Are The Components Of A Modeled Regional Haze Demonstration?

Modeling Process Overview

The goal of the regional haze program is to return to natural conditions
by 2064, and

States are required to demonstrate, by the end of the first planning
period ( by 2018), reasonable progress toward meeting that goal.

West Virginia is a member of the VISTAS RPO.  The VISTAS RPO was tasked
with the assignment of preparing a PM2.5 modeling platform that all
member states could use to model their LTSs to demonstrate reasonable
progress by 2018 in meeting the ultimate goal of natural visibility
conditions by 2064.

 The regional haze modeling was coordinated by the Southeast Regional
Planning Organization, Visibility Improvement State and Tribal
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), which is comprised of the ten
Southeast States (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia)
and the local programs and tribal agencies located within these states.
VISTAS contracted with Environ International Corp, Alpine Geophysics,
LLC and the University of California Riverside to perform the emissions
and air quality modeling for this regional haze state and tribal
implementation plans.

The VISTAS RPO used the Community Multi-scale Air Quality model (CMAQ)
version 4.5.1 as its photochemical grid model.  The model uses
simulations of chemical reactions, emission of PM2.5   and PM2.5
precursors and a sophisticated meteorological model (The Pennsylvania
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale
Meteorological Model (MM5)) to produce speciated PM2.5 concentrations
over the eastern United States.  The meteorological data used in the
meteorological model was for the 2002 base year.  The photochemical grid
model was run with the base year meteorology and base year emissions to
determine if the model performance was satisfactory.  Once the model
performance was determined to be adequate, PM 2.5 concentrations were
modeled by running the model with projected emissions for 2009 and 2018
and the original 2002 meteorology. The meteorology was held constant so
that the results of changing the emissions would not be influenced by
changing meteorology.

The EPA modeling guidance recommends that modeling be used to develop
relative response factors for each of 6 components of particulate matter
between a base period (2000-2004) and a future 5-year period which will
be reviewed in 2018.  PM components used for regional haze-related
applications are:

- mass associated with sulfates;

- mass associated with nitrates;

- mass associated with organic carbon;

- mass associated with elemental carbon;

- mass associated with fine soil (i.e., crustal material);

- mass associated with coarse particulate matter (i.e., PM10 - PM2.5).

Current speciated measurements in a Class I area are used in an
empirically derived equation to estimate light extinction for each day
with measurements. Days are ranked according to their resulting light
extinction (measured in deciviews). This ranking is used to identify the
20% of days with worst and 20% of days with best visibility during each
year in the base period. The 20% worst and best days are examined to
estimate appropriate observed concentrations for the components of PM on
“best” and “worst” days. Observed component concentrations are
multiplied by the corresponding relative response factors to estimate
future concentrations for each component on “best” and “worst”
days. Future component concentrations are then inserted into the
equation relating light extinction to concentrations of particulate
matter. The resulting estimates for future light extinction on
“best” and “worst” days are compared with observations made
during the base period to assess the future year visibility improvement
and demonstrate reasonable progress by 2018 in meeting the ultimate goal
of natural visibility conditions by 2064.

Steps Required in Modeling Future Year Visibility Improvement

The modeling guidance lists nine steps for preparing modeling to
demonstrate reasonable progress toward visibility improvement goals.

1. Develop a conceptual description of the problem to be addressed.

2. Select an appropriate model to support the demonstration.

3. Select appropriate meteorological time periods to model.

4. Choose an appropriate area to model with appropriate
horizontal/vertical resolution
   and establish the initial and boundary conditions that are suitable
for the application.

5. Generate meteorological inputs to the air quality model.

6. Generate emissions inputs to the air quality model.

7. Run the air quality model with base case emissions and evaluate the
performance.

    Perform diagnostic tests to improve the model, as necessary.

8. Perform future year modeling (including additional control
strategies, if necessary) and

    use the results to calculate future year visibility and visibility
improvement.

How Did West Virginia Address All Of The Components a Modeled
Demonstration Of  Future Year Visibility Improvement?

The West Virginia Haze SIP addresses each of the required elements of a
modeling analysis used to predict visibility improvement that is
expected by 2018.

Conceptual Description of the Problem

A conceptual model describes how weather patterns affect the formation
and transport of PM2.5, accounting for emissions and photochemistry.

The conceptual model for the West Virginia PM2.5 SIP is described in
Appendix B of the WV Haze SIP.  Air Resources Specialists, Inc (ARS) was
contracted by VISTAS to develop a conceptual description of the current
visibility in the VISTAS area as it relates to meteorology and source
distribution.  This document was prepared in accordance with EPA
guidance.

Ammonium sulfate is the largest contributor to visibility impairment on
the 20% haziest

days in the baseline 2000-2004 period (69-74%) at all the IMPROVE sites
in the VISTAS region except Everglades National Park in Florida, where
Ammonium sulfate is a close second to Particulate Organic Material (
POM) (40 and 45%, respectively). Particulate Organic Material (also
referred to as organic carbon) is the second largest contributor to
aerosol extinction at all other sites, contributing to between 13 and
18% of aerosol extinction on the worst days.  Baseline conditions for
20% worst days at the inland sites (182.2 - 241.4 Mm-1) average higher
WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix B.1 – 494 3- 18 than conditions measured
at the coastal sites (116.4 - 147.3 Mm-1).

Ammonium sulfate is also the largest contributor to visibility
impairment on the 20% best

days (45-59%), with large contributions from ammonium nitrate (9-21%)
POM (11-19%). Sea salt is not a factor on the 20% worst days, but for
the 20% best days it contributes to between 2 and 7% of the aerosol
extinction at the VISTAS coastal sites.

Ammonium sulfate, Coarse Mass(CM) and POM are the largest contributors
to total mass on the 20% best and worst days. CM, although it is a
factor for total mass, has a low extinction efficiency and does not
contribute significantly to aerosol extinction. Ammonium sulfate
contributes more significantly to aerosol extinction because it readily
absorbs water vapor in the air.

For most inland sites, the 20% haziest days are most likely to occur in
the summer, and

the 20% best days occur most frequently during the winter. For coastal
sites, the 20% haziest days can occur year round, with the summer days
being dominated by ammonium sulfate, while the worst days that occur
between October and February have large contributions from ammonium
sulfate, POM and sometimes ammonium nitrate

Sulfate is the key particle constituent from the standpoint of designing
control strategies to improve visibility conditions in the VISTAS
states. Significant further reductions in ambient sulfate levels are
achievable, though they will require more than proportional reductions
in SO2 emissions.

Modeling Platform

Currently one regional-scale air quality models has been evaluated and
used by VISTAS to perform air quality simulations. This is the Community
Multi-scale Air Quality modeling system (CMAQ; Byun and Ching, 1999).
CMAQ was developed by USEPA.   CMAQ has undergone extensive community
development and peer review (Amar et al., 2005) and has been
successfully used in a number of regional air quality studies (Bell and
Ellis, 2003; Hogrefe et al., 2004; Jimenez and Baldasano, 2004; Mao and
Talbot, 2003; Mebust et al., 2003).

Modeling for regional haze was performed by VISTAS for the ten
Southeastern states, including West Virginia. The sections below outline
the methods and inputs used by VISTAS for the regional modeling.
Additional details are provided in Appendices C, D and M of the WV Haze
SIP.

Meteorological Time Periods Used in the Modeling

VISTAS selected all days in the year 2002 as the modeling time period
for this demonstration. Meteorological inputs were developed for 2002
using the meteorological model. Emissions inventories were also
developed for 2002 and processed through the emissions model. These
inputs were then used in the air quality model to predict fine particle
mass and visibility.  The 2002 base year represents the baseline period
from 2000 to 2004.  CMAQ simulations were performed for the 2002 Base
Case, 2009 and 2018 Base Case, and 2009 and 2018 Control Case. All
scenarios adopt the same meteorological field (2002) and boundary
conditions, varying only emission inputs.

Meteorological Data Used in the Air Quality Model

The VISTAS states decided to use a prognostic meteorological model that
provides life-like meteorological inputs to the photochemical grid
model.  The Pennsylvania State University/National Center for
Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6
was chosen for the modeling analysis.  The MM5 model provides a
reasonable representation of weather conditions at the surface and
aloft.

Domain of the Model, Horizontal/Vertical Resolution and the Initial and
Boundary Conditions

VISTAS has adopted the Inter-RPO domain description for its modeling
runs.

This 36-km domain covers the continental United States, southern Canada
and northern

Mexico. The dimensions of this domain are 145 and 102 cells in the
east-west and north-south directions, respectively (see Figure 3). To
achieve finer spatial resolution in the VISTAS states, a one-way nested
high resolution (12-km grid resolution) was used. Figure 4 shows the
12-km grid, modeling domain for the VISTAS region. This is the modeling
domain for which the reasonable progress goals are assessed.

Figure 3. The MM5 horizontal domain is the outer most, blue grid, with
the CMAQ 36-km domain nested in the MM5

Figure 4. A More Detailed View of the 12-km Grid Over the VISTAS Region

Vertical resolution is the number of layers and the size of each layer
in the model.  The layers in the photochemical grid model were set up to
be compatible with the model that produced meteorological conditions for
the photochemical grid model.  The vertical resolution used in the
modeling exercise followed EPA’s modeling guidance and therefore
adequately represents the atmosphere where PM2.5 and its precursors are
emitted and transported.

Baseline and Future Year Emission Inventories for Modeling

Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) of EPA’s Regional Haze Rule requires the
States to identify the baseline emission inventory on which strategies
are based. The baseline inventory is intended to be used to assess
progress in making emission reductions. Based on EPA guidance entitled,
2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hour Ozone, PM 2.5,
and Regional Haze Programs, which identifies 2002 as the anticipated
baseline emission inventory year for regional haze, VISTAS and the State
of West Virginia are using 2002 as the baseline year. Future year
inventories were developed for 2009 and 2018 based on the 2002 base
year. The future year emission inventory include emissions growth due to
projected increases in economic activity as well as the emissions
reductions due to the implementation of control measures.

The 2002 emissions were first generated by the individual states in the
VISTAS area. The VISTAS contractor generated the future year emissions
inventories for 2009 and 2018 for

the regional haze modeling. The 2002 emissions from non-VISTAS areas
within the modeling domain were obtained from other Regional Planning
Organizations for their corresponding areas. These Regional Planning
Organizations included the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union, the
Midwest Regional Planning Organization and the Central Regional Air
Planning Association.

The complete inventory and discussion of the methodology is contained in
Appendix D of the West Virginia Haze SIP.

Model Performance Evaluation

mance goals are: Mean Fractional Error (MFE) ≤ +50%, and Mean Fraction
Bias (MFB) ≤ ±30%; while the criteria are proposed as: MFE ≤ +75%,
and MFB ≤ ±60%. CMAQ prediction of PM2.5 species from STN sites and
IMPROVE sites within the VISTAS Region were paired with measurements and
statistically analyzed to generate MFE and MFB values. Considering CMAQ
performance in terms of MFE and MFB goals, sulfate, nitrate, OC, EC, and
PM2.5 all had the majority of data points within the goal curve, some
were between the goal and acceptable criteria, and only a few were
outside the criteria curve. Only fine soil has the majority of points
outside the criteria curve, but there were some sites still within the
goal. For the VISTAS region, CMAQ performs best for PM2.5 sulfate,
followed by PM2.5, EC, nitrate, OC, and then fine soil. Regional haze
modeling also requires CMAQ performance evaluation for aerosol
extinction coefficient (Bext) and the haze index.   Modeled daily
aerosol extinction at each improve site was calculated following the
IMPROVE formula with modeled daily PM2.5 species concentration and
relative humidity factors from IMPROVE. The approach used natural
background visibility estimates and the haze index following EPA
Guidance. The modeled Bext showed a near 1:1 linear relationship with
IMPROVE observed Bext.

Overall, WVDAQ found model performance to fall within acceptable limits.
The WVDAQ further asserts that the one atmosphere modeling performed by
the VISTAS contractors is representative of conditions in the
southeastern states and is applicable for use in setting reasonable
progress goals for the Class I areas.

Uniform Rate of Progress Goals

The key difference between SIPs from States with Class I areas and those
States without Class I areas, but may have sources that impact
visibility on Class I areas, is the calculation of the baseline and
natural visibility for their Class I areas and the determination of
uniform rate of progress goals - expressed in deciviews - that provide
for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility by 2064.
It is the Class I states responsibility assess these calculations. The
Class I States must also consult with those States, which may reasonably
be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in their
Class I areas (40 CFR 51.308 (d)(1)(i-vi)).

The baseline visibility conditions are calculated for the baseline
period between 2002 and 2004. The average impairment for the 20 most and
20 least impaired days are determined for each calendar year and
compiled into the average of three annual averages (40 CFR 51.308
(d)(2)(i)). The natural visibility conditions are determined for the
same baseline period with the most and least impaired days determined by
available monitoring data or an appropriate data analysis technique (40
CFR 51.308 (d)(iii-iv)).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released guidance on June 7,
2007 to use in setting reasonable progress goals. The goals must provide
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days, and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) period. The State must also provide an
assessment of the number of years it would take to attain natural
visibility condition if improvement continues at the rate represented by
the reasonable progress goal. Figure 5 illustrates an example of how
Uniform Rate of Progress is calculated.

Figure 5.  Example calculation of Uniform Rate of Progress

Modeled Visibility Projections for 2018

The CMAQ air quality model was used to simulate base period emissions
and future emissions.  The modeling results for the base year period
(2002) and the year representing the end of the first planning period
(2018) are used to develop relative response factors (RRF) for each
component of particulate matter identified previously in this TSD.  The
relative response factors are multiplied by the measured species
concentration data during the base period (for the measured 20% best and
worst days). This results in daily future year species concentrations
data. The projected concentrations are then used to derive daily
visibility in deciviews and are averaged across all best and worst days
to create the projected future visibility. The results of this procedure
are plotted along with the uniform progress glide slope in Appendix M of
the West Virginia Haze SIP.

The modeling results presented in Appendix M of the West Virginia Haze
SIP show all VISTAS sites are projected to meet or exceed the uniform
rate of progress goals for 2018 on the 20 percent worst days. In
addition, no site anticipates increases in visibility impairment
relative to the baseline on the 20 percent best days.

                                                           Summary of
Photochemical Grid Modeling Results

In summary, the photochemical grid modeling, presented in the West
Virginia Haze SIP, follow EPA’s modeling guidance and is acceptable to
EPA.  All VISTAS Class I sites are projected to meet or exceed the
uniform rate of progress goal for 2018 on the 20 percent worst days. In
addition, no site anticipates increases in visibility impairment
relative to the baseline on the 20 percent best days.

Contribution Assessment

The 1999 Regional Haze Rule requires States and Tribes to submit State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) for approval by January 2008 at the latest. The haze SIPs must
include a “contribution assessment” to identify those states or
regions that may be influencing specially protected federal lands known
as Federal Class I areas. These states or regions would then be subject
to the consultation provisions of the Haze Rule. The Haze Rule also
requires a “pollution apportionment” analysis as part of the
long-term emissions management strategy for each site.

As described in the Conceptual Description portion of this TSD, sulfate
alone accounts for anywhere from one-half to two-thirds of total fine
particle mass on the 20 percent haziest days at VISTAS Class I sites. As
a result of the dominant role of sulfate in the formation of regional
haze in the VISTAS area, VISTAS concluded that an effective emissions
management approach would rely heavily on broad-based regional SO2
control efforts in the eastern United States.

Area of Influence for VISTAS Class I Areas

There are 20 Class I areas located in the VISTAS area. The objective of
the VISTAS Area of Influence analysis is to identify the geographic
source regions that are contributing to visibility impairment at the
Class I areas on the worst 20 percent visibility days. This information
is being used by the VISTAS states as part of the evaluation and
demonstration of reasonable progress toward visibility improvement in
Class I areas. In order to identify states whose emissions are most
likely to influence visibility in VISTAS Class I areas, VISTAS prepared
a report entitled “VISTAS Area of Influence Analyses” located in
Appendix M of the West Virginia Haze SIP.

Based on that work, VISTAS concluded that it was appropriate to define
an “Area of Influence” (AOI) including all of the states
participating in VISTAS plus other states outside VISTAS for which
analyses indicated they contributed at least one percent (1%) of the
sulfate ion in VISTAS Class I areas in 2002.

Contribution Assessment Results

VISTAS States decided that any state or region that contributed at least
1 percent of total sulfate observed on 20 percent worst visibility days
in 2002 is contributing significantly to the haze problem in that
particular Class I area.

With respect to sulfate, the Contribution Assessment estimated emissions
from within VISTAS in 2002 contributed significantly to the total
sulfate at Class I areas located within and nearby to the VISTAS region
(see Appendix M of the West Virginia Haze SIP). The contribution of
sulfate at these Class I areas from other regions outside the VISTAS
were also significant.

Studies showed that West Virginia “contributes” to the following
Class I areas: Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, Otter Creek Wilderness Area,
James River Face Wilderness Area, Linville Gorge Wilderness Area, and
Shenandoah National Park. Therefore, this SIP focuses on how West
Virginia’s control measures will improve visibility in these areas.

BART

On July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39104) EPA finalized 40 CFR 51 – Regional Haze
Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Determinations addressing the issues from the Circuit Court decisions.
The BART requirements were most recently updated on October 5, 2006.
BART is defined as an emission limitation based on the degree of
reduction achievable through the application of the best system of
continuous emission reduction for each pollutant, which is emitted by a
BART-eligible source. The changes to the rule included how the States
would identify the best system of continuous emission control technology
and by which States can consider an individual facility’s contribution
to regional haze when determining to require controls, and what the
level of control should be met. The rule changes also clarified the
requirements associated with demonstrating how emissions trading or
alternative programs may be used as an alternative to applying Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Requirements.

Congress defined sources potentially subject to BART - as major
stationary sources, including reconstructed sources; from one of 26
identified source categories which included utility and industrial
boilers, and large industrial plants such as pulp mills, refineries and
smelters; which have the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of
any air pollutant, and which were placed in operation between August
1962 and August 1977. [CAA 169A (b)(2)(A) & (g)(7)].

Five Factor Analysis for Each BART Source

States are required to determine BART for each BART-eligible source.
According to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) the determination of BART must
be based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emission
control technology available and associated emission reductions
achievable. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires the analysis to take
into consideration the following five factors for the technology
available :

1) The costs of compliance,

2) The energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance,
any

3) Pollution control equipment 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 use of the technology.

Under the BART Guidelines, WVDAQ may consider exempting some sources
from   BART if it is found that they do not cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area. In accordance with the BART
guidelines, WVDAQ chose to perform source-specific analyses to determine
which sources cause or contribute to visibility impairment using the
California Puff Model (CALPUFF). The CALPUFF modeling protocol used for
determining which facilities are subject to BART is included in Appendix
H of the WV Haze SIP. In accordance with the Guidelines, a contribution
threshold of less than 0.5 deciviews was employed for determining which
sources were exempt from BART.

CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species, non-steady state puff
dispersion model which can simulate the time and space varying
meteorological conditions on pollutant transport, transformation and
removal. CALPUFF uses three dimensional meteorological fields developed
by the meteorological processing program CALMET.

CALPUFF contain algorithms for near source effects such as building
downwash, traditional plume rise, partial plume penetration, sub-grid
scale terrain interactions, as well as long range effects such as
pollutant removal (dry and wet deposition), chemical transformation,
vertical wind shear, over-water transport, and coastal interaction
effects.

The CALPUFF modeling performed for all of West Virginia’s BART sources
conforms to EPA modeling guidance.  A detailed description of the
CALPUFF modeling can be found in Appendix H of the West Virginia Haze
SIP.

West Virginia Sources Subject to BART

 Twenty-one (21) of West Virginia’s twenty-two (22) BART-eligible
sources submitted exemption modeling demonstrations. Nineteen (19) of
the twenty-one (21) sources were able to demonstrate exemption.
Additional details are available in Appendix H. Capitol Cement
(003-00006) was the only BART-eligible source which chose not to submit
exemption modeling.

Although PPG Industries initially modeled a visibility impact greater
than 0.5 deciviews on multiple Class I areas, PPG 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. Permit, R14-027B, requires 4690.56 tpy of SO2 emission
reductions from Boiler #5 by May 1, 2008. Therefore, PPG is considered
BART exempt.

Only Dominion’s Mt. Storm Power Station in Mt. Storm was unable to
demonstrate a

contribution of less than 0.5 deciview at all Class I area within 300 km
from their BART eligible sources. Therefore, Mt. Storm was the only
source considered to be “subject to BART” and required to submit a
permit application, containing their evaluation of potential BART
options and a proposed BART determination. Mt. Storm submitted a BART
determination on November 3, 2006. A copy of the BART determination was
sent to EPA and the Federal Land Managers for review on January 22,
2007.  On September 5, 2007 the company submitted a permit application
to incorporate the results of the BART determination. The WVDAQ
published a legal ad, which commenced the thirty day public comment
period, on September 18, 2007. A copy of the application and draft
permit were sent to the Federal Land Managers for review, via email, on
September 17, 2007. Permit R13- 2735 was issued December 13, 2007. [See
Appendix L for copies of application, draft permit and final permit.]
The current PM controls at Mt. Storm were determined to satisfy BART,
however, the allowable PM10 emission rate was lowered from 0.05 lb/mmBtu
to 0.03 lb/mmBtu, resulting in a reduction of up to 508 tpy per unit, or
a maximum reduction of 1524 tpy.

Capitol Cement in Martinsburg chose not to submit exemption modeling,
but simply to acknowledge that Kiln 9 was BART-subject. Capitol Cement
had previously applied for and been granted a PSD (Prevention of
Significant Deterioration) permit (R14-026, issued June 2, 2005) 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) was one
of the two kilns being replaced, and the permit included a requirement
for the permanent shutdown of the existing kilns when full-production
was achieved with the replacement kilns, or no later than 180 days after
startup. Therefore, the company requested that the permit be modified to
require the permanent shutdown of the Kiln 9 system by the BART
compliance deadline or when full-production was achieved with the
replacement kilns, or no later than 180 days after startup, whichever
came first. The WVDAQ issued an Administrative Update to permit R14-026B
on October 11, 2006, requiring that “Operation of the existing kiln 9
system shall permanently cease after the pre-heater-precalciner kiln
system achieves full production or within 1280 days after the
pre-heater-precalciner kiln system first becomes operational or before
the BART compliance deadline  (approximately 2013) whichever comes
first”. [See Appendix L for copies of letter and permit.] The
modifications at Capitol Cement are expected to result in 1,741.51 tpy
of SO2 reductions, 1,374.81 tpy of NOx reductions, and 66.01 tpy of PM10
reductions.

 Summary of EPA’s Technical Findings

The technical analyses and modeling used to assess uniform rate of
progress and to support the LTS were successfully developed consistent
with EPA’s interim and final modeling guidance.  All VISTAS sites and
MANE-VU sites, significantly impacted by VISTAS sources, are projected
to meet or exceed the uniform rate of progress goal for 2018 on the 20
percent worst days. In addition, no site anticipates increases
visibility impairment relative to the baseline on the 20 percent best
days. The technical analyses and modeling used in the West Virginia Haze
SIP’s contribution assessment and prediction of visibility impacts
from BART controls comply with EPA modeling guidance and
recommendations.  EPA finds the VISTAS technical modeling analyses
presented in the West Virginia Haze SIP to be acceptable because the
models that were used were applied according to EPA modeling guidance.

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 (see 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’’
(FLM).  (42 U.S.C. 7602(i))

(

T

[

\

]

^

m

z

}

Š

«

µ

Â

Ã

ê

ë

í

-

!

"

#

$

%

&

'

(

Ñ

í

î

)

4

A

B

O

P

V

W

i

j

l

m

Š

‹

®

¯

´

µ

¾

À

Â

Ã

Ú

â

ù

摧異

-

hpu

ༀຄᄁ㟾$␸䠀$葞Ď葠ﻲ摧戂\	㜀$␸䠀$摧異

摧異

hpu

hpu

hpu

摧異

	㜀$␸䠀$摧異

ht

 h

h

h

h

hà

hà

hà

 h

 h

 hk

h

h

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).

 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA
-454/B-07-002, April 2007

 The Class I designation applies to national parks exceeding 6,000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000
acres, and all international parks that were in existence prior to 1977.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register: May 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 29534-29536]
[DOCID:fr26my10-45]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0434; FRL-8826-6]

Inorganic Nitrates-Nitrite, Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, and Sulfur
Registration Review; Draft Ecological Risk Assessment and Endangered
Species Effects Determination; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft
ecological risk assessment for the registration review of inorganic
nitrates - nitrites, carbon and carbon dioxide, and gas cartridge uses
of sulfur, and opens a public comment period on this document. Comments
and input may address, among other things, the Agency's risk assessment
methodologies and assumptions, as applied to this draft risk
assessment. Interested parties may also provide suggestions for
mitigation of the risk identified in the draft ecological risk
assessment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has
completed a comprehensive draft ecological risk assessment, including
an endangered species assessment that identifies those species for
which exposure and effects may occur for all inorganic nitrates-
nitrites, carbon and carbon dioxide uses, as well as gas cartridge uses
of sulfur. The risk assessment includes a species specific analysis and
effects determination on 3 of 11 species found in the San Francisco Bay
area that are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Concurrent with this public comment opportunity, EPA
is initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. After reviewing comments received during this public comment
period, EPA will issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes
to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments. The Agency may
request further public input on risk mitigation before developing a
proposed registration review decision for inorganic nitrates -
nitrites, carbon and carbon dioxide, and sulfur. After a revised risk
assessment is completed, EPA will also initiate further consultation,
as needed, when appropriate, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding potential risks to federally listed threatened or endangered
species and their designated critical habitat.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The mailing address for each Chemical Review Manager listed
in the table in Unit II. is: Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Submit your comments
identified by the docket identification (ID) number for the specific
pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit II. by one of the
methods listed below:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID numbers listed
in the table in Unit II. for the pesticides you are commenting on.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
docket without change and may be made available on-line 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 regulations.gov or e-mail. The
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 regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the 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 docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information
contact: The Chemical Review Manager identified in the table in Unit
II. for the pesticide of interest.
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Kevin Costello, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

 A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the

chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public
interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since
others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe
all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the appropriate Chemical Review Manager
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

 B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of inorganic nitrates -
nitrites, carbon and carbon dioxide, and sulfur pursuant to section
3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part
155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things,
that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years.
Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered
only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly
recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended
function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that
is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human
dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in
or on food.
    The pesticides that are the subject of this notice and the Chemical
Review Managers are listed in the following table:

           Table--Pesticides Available for Registration Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Chemical Review
                                                      Manager, Telephone
        Docket ID Number            Pesticide name        Number, fax
                                                        number, E-mail
                                                            Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1118              Inorganic           Eric Miederhoff
                                   nitrates--nitrite<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                   s<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                                      miederhoff.eric@ep
                                                       a.gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0705              Carbon and carbon   Carissa Cyran
                                   dioxide<PHONE_NUMBER>
<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                                      cyran.carissa@epa.
                                                       gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176              Sulfur              Jose Gayoso
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                       v
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Registration Reviews

 A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registrations for inorganic nitrates - nitrites, carbon and carbon
dioxide, and sulfur to ensure they continue to satisfy the FIFRA
standard for registration--that is, that inorganic nitrates - nitrites,
carbon and carbon dioxide, and sulfur can still be used without
unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.
Inorganic nitrates - nitrites, carbon and carbon dioxide are active
ingredients and are mixed in some cases with sulfur, to create fumigant
gas cartridges which release toxic fumes after ignition. These gas
producing cartridges are placed in animal burrows to control small
mammal pests. EPA has completed a comprehensive draft ecological risk
assessment, including an endangered species assessment, for all
inorganic nitrate - nitrite, carbon and carbon dioxide uses, as well as
gas cartridge

uses of sulfur. All other uses of sulfur will be included in the
upcoming ecological risk assessment for the registration review of
sulfur, docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176. The risk assessment includes a
species specific analysis and effects determination of the cartridges
on 3 of 11 species found in the San Francisco Bay area that are listed
as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
These species specific effects determinations were conducted in
response to litigation brought against EPA by the Center for Biological
Diversity in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California (Civ. No. 07-2794-JSC) where sodium nitrate and potassium
nitrate were alleged to be of concern.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity,
through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's draft ecological risk
assessment for inorganic nitrates - nitrites, carbon and carbon
dioxide, and gas cartridge uses of sulfur. Such comments and input
could address, among other things, the Agency's risk assessment
methodologies and assumptions, as applied to this draft risk
assessment. Interested parties may also provide suggestions for
mitigation of the risk identified in the draft ecological risk
assessment.
    Concurrent with this public comment opportunity, EPA is initiating
informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
purposes of validating the list of potentially affected species, to
identify the geographic areas in which each species may reside, and to
assist EPA in determining how best to assemble information on the
baseline status of each species. The ESA regulations provide for two
types of consultation; formal and informal. Informal consultation is an
optional process that includes discussions, correspondence, etc.
between the Services and a Federal agency or a designated non-Federal
representative (NFR) to determine whether a Federal action is likely to
have an adverse effect on listed species or critical habitat. During
informal consultation the Services may suggest modifications to the
action that a Federal agency, permit applicant or non-Federal
representative could implement to avoid likely adverse effects to
listed species or critical habitat. If adverse effects are likely and
those effects cannot be addressed through informal consultation, then
formal consultation generally occurs. The Agency will consider all
comments received during the public comment period and make changes, as
appropriate, to the draft ecological risk assessment. EPA will then
issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk
assessment, and respond to comments. EPA will also, at that time,
initiate further consultation, as needed, when appropriate, with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential risks to federally
listed threatened or endangered species and their designated critical
habitat. In the Federal Register notice announcing the availability of
the revised risk assessment, if the revised risk assessment indicates
risks of concern, the Agency may provide an additional comment period
for the public to submit suggestions for mitigating the risk identified
in the revised risk assessment before developing proposed registration
review decisions on inorganic nitrates - nitrites, carbon and carbon
dioxide, and sulfur.

B. Docket Content

    As described in detail in the Inorganic Nitrate-Nitrite Summary
Document (see docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1118), Carbon and Carbon
Dioxide Summary Document (see docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0705)
the Agency believes that the human health risk assessments completed
prior to registration review are adequate, and there are no human
health risks that exceed the Agency's level of concern. Thus, no
additional human health data are expected to be needed for the
registration review of inorganic nitrates - nitrites, carbon and carbon
dioxide. In the Sulfur Summary Document (see docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2008-0176) the Agency stated that revised occupational and
residential exposure human health assessments for sulfur should be
conducted in registration review. These human health assessments are
still anticipated for all uses of sulfur, including the cartridge use,
and will be included in the upcoming registration review risk
assessment.
    1. Other related information. Additional information on inorganic
nitrates - nitrites is available on the Pesticide Registration Review
Status webpage for this pesticide, http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/
registration_review/inorganic_nitrate/index.htm. Additional
information on carbon and carbon dioxide is available on the Pesticide
Registration Review Status webpage for this pesticide, http://
www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/carbon/index.htm. Additional
information on sulfur is available on the Pesticide Registration Review
Status webpage for this pesticide, http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/
registration_review/sulfur/index.htm. Information on the Agency's
registration review program and its implementing regulation is
available at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review.
     2. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Inorganic nitrates-
-nitrites, Carbon and carbon dioxide, Sulfur.

    Dated: May 17, 2010.
 Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-12591 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S