"Andrew Hackman"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 09/17/2007 12:10 PM	To

	Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

	cc

	"'Doug Fratz'"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 	bcc

	Subject

	RE: CSPA Comments on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064

	History:

		This message has been replied to.

Ms. Sheppard,

CSPA has compiled the actual data and characteristics from each of the

sampling facilities that were performed with our member’s products; which

should provide some additional information with regard to the

representative nature of the data.  However, because this data was

collected by CSPA members with the cooperation of their customers and

would disclose some product formulation information, we will need to seek

their approval before we can provide that information.  We also would need

to ensure that the information is treated as Confidential Business

Information.

Please let me know if you would like us to reach out to or members for

approval now, or if it would be more appropriate to wait until the request

is in writing.

Also, let me know if there is a schedule for upcoming dates when decisions

might be made on this issue.

Thank you,

Andy Hackman

Manager of State Affairs Programs

The Consumer Specialty Products Association

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attachments)

contains information from the Consumer Specialty Products Association

(CSPA) and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18

U.S.C. 2510-21, and is intended only for the named recipient (or

recipients) and CSPA member companies. This e-mail, including any

attachments or hyperlinks within it, may contain information that is

confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the

intended recipient of this email, you are not entitled to use, disclose,

distribute, copy, print, disseminate or rely on this email in any way.

Even if you are the intended recipient or a CSPA member company, you may

not distribute, disclose or otherwise disseminate this email or its

attachments outside the membership of CSPA, without CSPA's prior written

consent.

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, September 14,

2007 4:51 PM

To: Andrew Hackman

Cc: 'Doug Fratz'

Subject: RE: CSPA Comments on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064

Mr. Hackman,

I do have some questions, but I need to check with our counsel before

putting anything in writing.  In general, I am interested in whatever

additional information you can provide to show if the workplace data you

provided are representative.  I am glad that CSPA was able to provide EPA

with the exposure data.

Margaret Sheppard

USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division

SNAP Program

Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

-----"Andrew Hackman"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote: -----

To: Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Andrew Hackman"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date: 09/11/2007 04:51PM

cc: "'Doug Fratz'"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: CSPA Comments on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064

Manager of State Affairs Programs

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attachments)

contains information from the Consumer Specialty Products Association

(CSPA) and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18

U.S.C. 2510-21, and is intended only for the named recipient (or

recipients) and CSPA member companies. This e-mail, including any

attachments or hyperlinks within it, may contain information that is

confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the

intended recipient of this email, you are not entitled to use, disclose,

distribute, copy, print, disseminate or rely on this email in any way.

Even if you are the intended recipient or a CSPA member company, you may

not distribute, disclose or otherwise disseminate this email or its

attachments outside the membership of CSPA, without CSPA's prior written

consent.

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> To: Andrew Hackman

Thank you for the courtesy copy of your comments.  I appreciate that you

the workplace.  I will look forward to reading them in detail.

Sincerely,

USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division

Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: October 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 206)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55116-55118]
[DOCID:fr27oc09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0324; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-186-AD;
Amendment 39-16039; AD 2009-21-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-
605R, B4-620, B4-622, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F
Series Airplanes Equipped With Simmonds Precision Products, Inc., Fuel
Quantity Indicating System Sensors and In-Tank Harnesses Installed in
Accordance With Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00092BO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus model series airplanes listed above. This AD requires revising
the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for
Continuing Airworthiness to incorporate new fuel system limitations for
airplanes modified in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) ST00092BO. This AD also requires a general visual inspection for
tank unit separation and compensator separation of the center, inner,
and outer fuel tanks, and trim fuel tanks of the tank units, and
corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from fuel system
reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to
prevent a potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which in
combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank
fire or explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective December 1, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of December 1,
2009.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Goodrich Corporation, Sensors and Integrated Systems (Formerly Fuel and
Utility Systems), 100 Panton Road, Vergennes, Vermont 05491-1008;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Ronell, Aerospace Engineer, ANE-
150, FAA, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-
7776; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, B4-
622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F series airplanes. That
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2009 (74 FR
16152). That NPRM proposed to require revising the Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continuing
Airworthiness to incorporate new fuel system limitations for airplanes
modified in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST00092BO. That NPRM also proposed to require a general visual
inspection for tank unit separation and compensator separation of the
center, inner, and outer fuel tanks, and trim fuel tanks of

the tank units, and corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Actions Since NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued that NPRM, we have determined that it is necessary
to clarify the AD's intended effect on spare and on-airplane fuel tank
system components, regarding the use of maintenance manuals and
instructions for continued airworthiness.
    Section 91.403(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
91.403(c)) specifies the following:

    No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's
maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness has
been issued that contains an airworthiness limitation section unless
the mandatory * * * procedures * * * have been complied with.

Some operators have questioned whether existing components affected by
the new CDCCLs must be reworked. We did not intend for the AD to
retroactively require rework of components that had been maintained
using acceptable methods before the effective date of the AD. Owners
and operators of the affected airplanes therefore are not required to
rework affected components identified as airworthy or installed on the
affected airplanes before the required revisions of the ALS. But once
the CDCCLs are incorporated into the ALS, future maintenance actions on
components must be done in accordance with those CDCCLs.
    We have added Note 2 to this AD to clarify the intended effect of
the AD on spare and on-airplane fuel tank system components.

Revision to Paragraph (h) of This AD

    We removed a redundant reference to the service information, ``in
accordance with Section 2.2.3 of the Goodrich A300-600 Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness, Document T3012-0005-0101, Revision B, dated
June 12, 2008,'' from paragraph (h) of this AD.

Revision to the Product Identification Line

    We have revised the product identification line that precedes
paragraph (a) of this AD to specify Airbus. For ADs that apply to STCs
installed on only one type of airplane, we identify the name of the
airplane manufacturer in the product identification line.

Revision to Paragraph (l) of this AD

    We have revised paragraph (l) of this AD to include the phrase,
``if done before the effective date of this AD.'' This text was
inadvertently omitted. It was our intention to provide credit for
operators which have completed the inspections specified in paragraph
(h) of this AD, before the effective date of this AD, using Goodrich
Service Bulletin<PHONE_NUMBER>-28-01, Revision 1, dated July 1, 2004.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 68 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it takes about 8 work-hours per product to comply
with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to
be $43,520, or $640 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2009-21-02 Airbus: Amendment 39-16039. Docket No. FAA-2009-0324;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-186-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 1,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD affects AD 2004-05-05, Amendment 39-13499.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-
605R, B4-620, B4-622, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant
F series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with
Simmonds Precision Products, Inc., Fuel Quantity Indicating System
sensors and in-tank harnesses installed in accordance with
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00092BO.

    Note 1:  This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c),

the operator must request approval for an alternative method of
compliance according to paragraph (o) of this AD. The request should
include a description of changes to the required inspections that
will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD
to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which
in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank
fire or explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless already
done.

Revision to the Airworthiness Limitations Section To Incorporate
Inspections

    (g) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the inspections specified in
Section 2.2.3 of the Goodrich A300-600 Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness, Document T3012-0005-0101, Revision B, dated June 12,
2008.

Inspection for Correct Separation

    (h) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, do a
general visual inspection for tank unit separation and compensator
separation of the center, inner, and outer fuel tanks, and trim fuel
tanks of the tank units, in accordance with Section 2.2.3 of the
Goodrich A300-600 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Document
T3012-0005-0101, Revision B, dated June 12, 2008. If incorrect
separation is found, before further flight, correct the separation
in accordance with the Airplane Maintenance Manual for the
corresponding inspection specified in Section 2.2.3 of the Goodrich
A300-600 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Document T3012-
0005-0101, Revision B, dated June 12, 2008. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the
requirement of Table 6 in Section 10.1 of the Goodrich A300-600
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Document T3012-0005-0101,
Revision B, dated June 12, 2008, can be conclusively determined to
have been done from that review.

Revision to the ALS To Incorporate CDCCLs

    (i) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate the CDCCLs, as defined in Section 10.1 of the Goodrich
A300-600 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness,
    Document T3012-0005-0101, Revision B, dated June 12, 2008.
    (j) Except as provided by paragraph (o) of this AD: After
accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (i) of
this AD, no alternative inspection, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs
may be used.

    Note 2: Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational
requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or
installed on the affected airplanes before the revision of the
Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continuing
Airworthiness, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, do not need
to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the
Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continuing
Airworthiness has been revised, future maintenance actions on these
components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs.

Actions Done According to Previous Service Information

    (k) Inspections are acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD, if done before the
effective date of this AD, in accordance with Goodrich Service
Bulletin<PHONE_NUMBER>-28-01, dated April 15, 2004.
    (l) Inspections are also acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD, if done before the
effective date of this AD, in accordance with Goodrich Service
Bulletin<PHONE_NUMBER>-28-01, Revision 1, dated July 1, 2004.

Acceptable Methods of Compliance for AD 2004-05-05

    (m) Doing the inspections in Section 2.2.3 of the Goodrich A300-
600 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Document T3012-0005-
0101, Revision B, dated June 12, 2008, is considered an acceptable
method of compliance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of AD 2004-05-05.
    (n) Doing the inspections in accordance with Goodrich Service
Bulletin<PHONE_NUMBER>-28-01, Revision 1, dated July 1, 2004, is an
acceptable method of compliance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of AD
2004-05-05.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (o)(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Marc Ronell, Aerospace Engineer, ANE-150, FAA, Boston ACO, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (p) You must use Goodrich A300-600 Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness, Document T3012-0005-0101, Revision B, dated June 12,
2008, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise. (The List of Effective Pages section of this document
does not include pages iii, 6, 15, and 16 of this document. Those
pages are also at Revision B, dated June 12, 2008.)
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Goodrich Corporation, Sensors and Integrated Systems (Formerly Fuel
and Utility Systems), 100 Panton Road, Vergennes, Vermont 05491-
1008; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 18, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-24011 Filed 10-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1925-1926]
[FR Doc No: 2012-421]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-26-000]

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on December 7, 2011, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company, LLC (CEGT), P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, Louisiana
71151, filed an application in the above referenced docket pursuant to
section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authority to
abandon by sale, to CenterPoint Energy Field Services, LLC (CEFS),
approximately 7 miles of 6-inch diameter pipeline and separator
facilities, all located in Franklin County, Arkansas. Additionally,
CEGT seeks a Commission determination that the facilities, once
conveyed to CEFS, will be gathering facilities exempt from the
Commission's jurisdiction under Section 1(b) of the NGA, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection. This filing is available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to
Michelle Willis, Manager, Regulatory and Compliance, CenterPoint Energy
Gas Transmission Company, LLC (CEGT), P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport,
Louisiana 71151 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the

proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: January 26, 2012.

    Dated: January 5, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-421 Filed 1-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19001-19009]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07589]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0299; FRL-9909-09-Region-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West
Virginia pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA
requires states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic
program elements, including, but not limited to regulatory structure,
monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary
to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements
are referred to as infrastructure requirements. The State of West
Virginia has made a submittal addressing the infrastructure
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0299. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection 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: Ellen Schmitt,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of SIP Revision

    On February 17, 2012, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WV DEP) submitted a SIP revision that addresses the
infrastructure elements specified in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA,
necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On
July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39650), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West Virginia proposing approval of
West Virginia's submittal. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of the
following infrastructure elements: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D),
(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof. EPA
has taken separate action on the portions of section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to West Virginia's prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program and is taking separate action
on section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates to section 128 (State
Boards). West Virginia did not submit section 110(a)(2)(I) which
pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the
CAA, since this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year
submission deadline of section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a
separate process. West Virginia also did not include a component to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as it is not required in accordance
with the EME Homer City decision from the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, until EPA has defined a
state's contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance
in another state. See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7
(D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 133 U.S. 2857 (2013). Unless the EME
Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme
Court, states such as West Virginia are not required to submit section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has quantified their obligations
under that section. Therefore, a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submission from
West Virginia is not statutorily required at this time. As no such
submission was made by the State, there is no 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP
pending

before the EPA. Thus, in this rulemaking notice, EPA is not taking
action with respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    The rationale supporting EPA's proposed rulemaking action,
including the scope of infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in
the NPR and the technical support document (TSD) accompanying the NPR
and will not be restated here. The TSD is available in the docket for
this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0299.

II. Public Comments and EPA's Responses

    EPA received three sets of comments on the July 2, 2013 proposed
approval of West Virginia's 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP. The
commenters include the State of Connecticut, the State of Maryland, and
the Sierra Club. A full set of these comments is provided in the docket
for today's final rulemaking action. As both States and the Sierra Club
submitted comments regarding the interstate transport of pollution and
the States did not comment on other issues, a summary of the comments
dealing with transport and EPA's responses will be addressed first
followed by summaries of and responses to the remainder of Sierra
Club's comments.

A. ``Interstate Transport'' Comments

    Comment 1: The State of Connecticut, the State of Maryland, and the
Sierra Club (the commenters) assert that the ability of downwind states
to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS is substantially compromised by
interstate transport of pollution from upwind states. The States
comment that they have done their share to reduce in-state emissions,
and EPA should ensure each state fully addresses its contribution to
any other state's ozone nonattainment. The commenters state that
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states like West Virginia to
submit, within three years of promulgation of a new NAAQS, an
infrastructure SIP which provides for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of such NAAQS within the state. The commenters remark that
West Virginia was required to submit a complete SIP that demonstrated
compliance with the good neighbor provision of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. Maryland also states that EPA must
disapprove the infrastructure submittal for element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
as West Virginia made no submittal for that element. Maryland also
argues that if EPA believes EME Homer City prohibits it from
disapproving the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the West Virginia SIP
before the state's significant contribution level is established, then
EPA should immediately promulgate such a level. Sierra Club, in turn,
states that EPA must disapprove West Virginia's SIP submission for
failure to comply with 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Sierra Club and Maryland
both argue that EPA cannot rely on the D.C. Circuit decision in EME
Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) as an excuse
to ignore obligations established by the Clean Air Act. Sierra Club
suggests the relevant language in EME Homer City is dicta and that as
this rulemaking action would be appealed to the Fourth Circuit, and EPA
is under no obligation to follow that dicta.
    Connecticut and Sierra Club state that EPA must make a finding
under section 110(k) of the CAA that West Virginia failed to submit the
required SIP elements to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.
Connecticut states that under section 110(c)(1) of the CAA such a
finding creates a two year deadline for EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP). In addition, Connecticut and Maryland state
that the CAA does not give EPA discretion to approve a SIP without the
good neighbor provision on the grounds that EPA would take separate
action to address West Virginia's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations. They
assert that a FIP is the only separate action available to EPA under
the CAA to address a state's failure to satisfy the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Sierra Club states that EPA must issue a FIP within
two years of disapproval of West Virginia's SIP under section
110(c)(1)(A) of the CAA.
    Response 1: In this rulemaking action, EPA is not taking any final
action with respect to the provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--
the portion of the good neighbor provision which addresses emissions
that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. West Virginia did not make a
SIP submission to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and thus there is no such submission upon which EPA
could take action under section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA could not, as
Maryland urges, act under section 110(k) to disapprove a SIP submission
that has not been submitted to EPA. In addition, EPA could not, at this
time, find that West Virginia has failed to submit a required SIP
element for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City
has held no such obligation to submit exists until EPA defines a
state's obligations under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA also disagrees with
the commenters that EPA cannot approve a SIP without the good neighbor
provision and believes there is no basis for the contention that EPA
must issue a FIP within two years, as EPA has neither disapproved, nor
found that West Virginia failed to submit a required 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
SIP submission.
    EPA acknowledges the commenters' concern that interstate transport
of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind states to downwind states may
have adverse consequences on the ability of downwind areas to attain
the NAAQS in a timely fashion. EPA also agrees in general with the
commenters that each state should address its contribution to another
state's nonattainment and that section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
states like West Virginia to submit, within three years of promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS, a plan which provides for implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of such NAAQS within the state. Similarly,
EPA has interpreted the CAA as providing that any finding by EPA that a
state has failed to make such a submission would trigger an obligation
for EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years if the state did not
submit and EPA approve a SIP to correct the deficiency before EPA
promulgates a FIP. However, as discussed further in this response,
while EPA continues to agree that the plain language of the statute
establishes these obligations, unless the D.C. Circuit decision in EME
Homer City is reversed or modified by the Supreme Court, EPA intends to
act in accordance with that opinion. In that opinion, the D.C. Circuit
held that a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP to address emissions that
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS in another state is not due until EPA has defined the
state's obligations under that section of the CAA. Thus, at this time,
West Virginia has no obligation to make a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP
submittal and EPA has no obligation to issue a FIP.
    As mentioned previously, EPA has historically interpreted the CAA
as requiring states to submit SIPs addressing the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA within three years of the
promulgation or revision of a NAAQS. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit clearly articulated in its opinion
in EME Homer City that SIPs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA
are not due until EPA has defined a state's significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with maintenance in another state. See
EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7. EPA has not yet done this for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.

While the Supreme Court has agreed to review the EME Homer City
decision, the D.C. Circuit's decision currently remains in place. EPA
intends to act in accordance with the EME Homer City opinion unless it
is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in
this rulemaking action, EPA is not taking any final action with respect
to the provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On January 15, 2013, EPA published findings of failure to
submit with respect to the infrastructure SIP requirements for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. See 78 FR 2882. In that rulemaking action, EPA
explained why it was not issuing any findings of failure to submit
with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Id. at 2884-85. In that
rulemaking action, EPA explained the opinion of the D.C. Circuit in
EME Homer City concluded that a ``SIP cannot be deemed to lack a
required submission or deemed deficient for failure to meet the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation until after EPA quantifies the
obligation.'' See 78 FR at 2884-85; see also EME Homer City, 696
F.3d at 32. Therefore, under EME Homer City, states like West
Virginia have no obligation to make a SIP submission to address
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS until EPA has
first defined the state's obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees with the commenters' argument that EPA cannot approve
a SIP without the good neighbor provision. Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA
authorizes EPA to approve a plan in full, disapprove it in full, or
approve it in part and disapprove it in part, depending on the extent
to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This authority to
approve state SIP revisions in separable parts was included in the 1990
Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA could not approve individual
measures in a plan submission without either approving or disapproving
the plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N.
3385, 3408 (discussing the express overruling of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832
F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)).
    EPA further disagrees with commenters' suggestions that the Agency
need not follow the D.C. Circuit opinion in EME Homer City. EPA intends
to act in accordance with the D.C. Circuit opinion in EME Homer City
unless it is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme Court. In
addition, because the EPA rule known as the Cross State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) reviewed by the court in EME Homer City was designated by
EPA as a ``nationally applicable'' rule within the meaning of CAA
section 307(b)(1) with petitions for review of CSAPR required to be
filed in the D.C. Circuit, EPA accordingly believes the D.C. Circuit's
decision in EME Homer City is also nationally applicable. As such, EPA
does not intend to take any actions, even if they are only reviewable
in another federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which are inconsistent
with the decision of the D.C. Circuit. EPA also finds no basis for one
commenter's suggestion that the relevant portion of the D.C. Circuit
opinion in EME Homer City opinion is dicta.
    EPA interprets its authority under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, as
affording EPA the discretion to approve or conditionally approve
individual elements of West Virginia's infrastructure submission for
the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS, separate and apart from any action
with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
CAA with respect to that NAAQS. EPA views discrete infrastructure SIP
requirements, such as the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as
severable from the other infrastructure elements and interprets section
110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on individual severable measures in a
plan submission. In short, EPA believes that even if West Virginia had
made a SIP submission for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, which
it has not, EPA would still have discretion under section 110(k) of the
CAA to act upon the various individual elements of the state's
infrastructure SIP submission, separately or together, as appropriate.
The commenters raise no compelling legal or environmental rationale for
an alternate interpretation.
    EPA disagrees with the comment from Connecticut and Maryland
regarding EPA's statement indicating an intent to take separate action
on West Virginia's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations and that a FIP must
be issued within two years. In the rulemaking action which proposed
approval of portions of West Virginia's infrastructure SIP for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, EPA stated that its proposed action did not include any
proposed action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for West
Virginia's February 17, 2012 infrastructure SIP submission because this
element was not required until EPA quantified the state's obligations
pursuant to the EME Homer City opinion. See (78 FR 39650, July 2,
2013). As EPA has neither disapproved, nor found that West Virginia
failed to submit a required 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission, there is
consequently no basis for any contention that EPA must issue a FIP
within two years. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit clearly held in EME Homer
City that even where EPA had issued findings of failure to submit
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs and/or disapproved such SIPs, EPA lacked
authority to promulgate FIPs under 110(c)(1) of the CAA where it had
not previously quantified states' good neighbor obligations. EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 31-37. And, as explained earlier in this rulemaking
action, EPA intends to comply with that decision unless it is reversed
or otherwise modified by the Supreme Court. See also (78 FR 14681,
16843, March 7, 2013) (concluding that, under the D.C. Circuit opinion
in EME Homer City, disapproval of a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submitted by
Kentucky did not start a FIP clock).
    In sum, the concerns raised by the commenters do not establish that
it is inappropriate or unreasonable for EPA to approve the portions of
West Virginia's February 17, 2012 infrastructure SIP submission for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. As discussed above, EPA has no obligation to find
West Virginia failed to satisfy its good neighbor obligations and no
action is required at this time. Moreover, EPA notes that it is
actively working with state partners to assess next steps to address
air pollution that crosses state boundaries and has begun work on a
rulemaking to address transported air pollution affecting the ability
of states in the eastern half of the United States to attain and
maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including defining certain states'
obligations under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). That rulemaking action is
separate from this SIP approval action. It is also technically complex
and must comply with the rulemaking requirements of section 307(d) of
the CAA.

B. Sierra Club Comments

    Sierra Club makes several additional comments which are provided in
the docket for today's final rulemaking action and summarized below
with EPA's response to each.
    Comment 2: Sierra Club contends that EPA must disapprove West
Virginia's 2008 eight-hour ozone infrastructure SIP revision with
regard to the visibility components of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
(J) of the CAA since West Virginia's Regional Haze SIP relies on
visibility improvements from implementing the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR). The commenter asserts that CAIR is not permanent and
enforceable and they reference litigation in the D.C. Circuit related
to CAIR. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, on rehearing, 550
F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The commenter also cites to EPA statements
in rulemaking actions on SIPs, such as attainment SIPs and maintenance
SIPs, where EPA stated CAIR reductions were not permanent reductions.
The commenter states that EPA could not rely on CAIR, even if permanent
and enforceable, to support its proposed

approval of the visibility components in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
and (J) of the CAA for West Virginia's 2008 eight-hour ozone
infrastructure SIP revision. The commenter asserts that the
substitution of CAIR for best available retrofit technology (BART) for
electric generating units (EGUs) violates the CAA including section
169A. The commenter includes comments challenging EPA's prior
rulemakings that CAIR was ``better than BART'' because such exemption
from BART does not meet the requirements of CAA section 169A(c) or
169A(b)(2)(A). The commenter states that CAIR as a substitute for BART
for EGUs would result in the EGU sources having less stringent controls
on emissions than would result from application of source-by-source
BART.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the commenter that West Virginia's
infrastructure SIP does not meet the requirements for visibility
protection in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J) of the CAA. As
explained in detail in EPA's proposed rulemaking related to today's
rulemaking action, EPA believes that in light of the D.C. Circuit's
decision to vacate CSAPR, also known as the Transport Rule (see EME
Homer City, 696 F.3d 7), and the court's order for EPA to ``continue
administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement,''
it is appropriate for EPA to rely at this time on CAIR to support
approval of West Virginia's 2008 eight-hour ozone infrastructure
revision, including as it relates to visibility. Based on the current
direction from the court to continue administering CAIR, EPA believes
that it is appropriate to rely on CAIR emission reductions for purposes
of assessing the adequacy of West Virginia's infrastructure SIP
revision with respect to prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) while a
valid replacement rule is developed and until submissions complying
with any such new rule are submitted by the states and acted upon by
EPA or until the EME Homer City case is resolved in a way that provides
different direction regarding CAIR and CSAPR.
    Furthermore, as neither the State of West Virginia nor EPA has
taken any action to remove CAIR from the West Virginia SIP, CAIR
remains part of the federally-approved SIP and can be considered in
determining whether the SIP as a whole meets the requirement of prong 4
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). EPA is taking final rulemaking action to
approve the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to prong 4
because West Virginia's Regional Haze SIP, which EPA has approved (see
(77 FR 16937, March 23, 2012)), in combination with its SIP provisions
to implement CAIR adequately prevents sources in West Virginia from
interfering with measures adopted by other states to protect visibility
during the first planning period as also described in detail in the TSD
which accompanied the NPR.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) of the CAA 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. Therefore, EPA
believes it is appropriate to approve West Virginia's 2008 ozone
NAAQS infrastructure SIP for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it meets
the requirements of that section despite the limited approval status
of West Virginia's regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees with the commenter that the CAA does not allow states
to rely on an alternative program such as CAIR in lieu of source-
specific BART. EPA's regulations allowing states to adopt alternatives
to BART that provide for greater reasonable progress, and EPA's
determination that states may rely on CAIR to meet the BART
requirements, have been upheld by the D.C. Circuit as meeting the
requirements of the CAA. In the first case challenging the provisions
in the regional haze rule (40 CFR 51.308) allowing for states to adopt
alternative programs in lieu of BART, the court affirmed our
interpretation of section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA as allowing for
alternatives to BART where those alternatives will result in greater
reasonable progress than BART. Center for Energy and Economic
Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (finding
reasonable the EPA's interpretation of section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA as
requiring BART only as necessary to make reasonable progress). In the
second case, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C.
Cir. 2006), the court specifically upheld our determination that states
could rely on CAIR as an alternative program to BART for EGUs in the
CAIR-affected states. The court concluded that the EPA's two-pronged
test for determining whether an alternative program achieves greater
reasonable progress was a reasonable one and also agreed with EPA that
nothing in the CAA required the EPA to ``impose a separate technology
mandate for sources whose emissions affect Class I areas, rather than
piggy-backing on solutions devised under other statutory categories,
where such solutions meet the statutory requirements.'' Id. at 1340.
    EPA also notes that CAIR has not been ``vacated'' as stated in
Sierra Club's comment. As mentioned in EPA's TSD, CAIR was ultimately
remanded by the D.C. Circuit to EPA without vacatur, and EPA continues
to implement CAIR. EPA further notes that all of the rulemaking actions
and proposed rulemaking actions cited by the commenter which discussed
limited approvability of SIPs or redesignations due to the status of
CAIR were issued by EPA prior to the vacatur of CSAPR when EPA was
implementing CSAPR. Since the vacatur of CSAPR in August 2012 and with
continued implementation of CAIR per the direction of the DC Circuit in
EME Homer City, EPA has approved redesignations of areas to attainment
of the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS in which
states have relied on CAIR as an enforceable measure. See 77 FR 76415,
December 28, 2012 (redesignation of Huntingdon-Ashland, West Virginia
for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS which was proposed in 77 FR 68076,
November 15, 2012); 78 FR 59841, September 30, 2013 (redesignation of
Wheeling, West Virginia for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS which was
proposed in 77 FR 73575, December 11, 2012); and 78 FR 56168, September
12, 2013 (redesignation of Parkersburg, West Virginia for 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS which was proposed in 77 FR 73560, December 11,
2012).
    More fundamentally, we disagree with the commenter that the
adequacy of the BART measures in the West Virginia Regional Haze SIP is
relevant to the question of whether the State's SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA with respect to
visibility. EPA interprets the visibility provisions in this section of
the CAA as requiring states to include in their SIPs measures to
prohibit emissions that would interfere with the reasonable progress
goals set to protect Class I areas in other states. The regional haze
rule includes a similar requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). We note
that on March 23, 2012, EPA determined that West Virginia's Regional
Haze SIP adequately prevents sources in West Virginia from interfering
with the reasonable progress goals adopted by other states to protect
visibility during the first planning period. See 77 FR 16937. See also
76 FR 41158, 41175-41176 (proposing approval of West Virginia Regional
Haze SIP). As EPA's review of the West Virginia Regional Haze SIP
explains, the State relied on CAIR to achieve significant reductions in
emissions to both meet the BART requirements and to address impacts of
West Virginia on Class I areas in other

states. The question of whether or not CAIR satisfies the BART
requirements has no bearing on whether these measures meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA with respect to
visibility. We also note that while the adequacy of the BART provisions
in the West Virginia Regional Haze SIP is irrelevant to the question of
whether the plan meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
of the CAA, CAIR was upheld as an alternative to BART in accordance
with the requirements of Section 169A of the CAA by the DC Circuit in
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA.
    In addition, with regard to the visibility protection aspect of
section 110(a)(2)(J), as discussed in the TSD accompanying the NPR for
this rulemaking action, EPA stated that it recognizes that states are
subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part
C of the CAA. In the establishment of a new NAAQS such as the 2008
ozone NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C of Title I of the CAA do not change and there
are no applicable visibility obligations under part C ``triggered''
under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.
Therefore, EPA appropriately proposed approval of West Virginia's 2008
ozone infrastructure SIP revision for section 110(a)(2)(J). As
discussed for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) earlier in this rulemaking
action and in the TSD for this rulemaking action, West Virginia has
submitted SIP revisions to satisfy the requirements of part C of Title
I of the CAA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0299.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, EPA believes that it appropriately proposed approval of
West Virginia's infrastructure SIP revision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
for the structural visibility protection requirements in
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Comment 3: Sierra Club states that EPA must disapprove West
Virginia's 2008 eight-hour ozone infrastructure SIP revision for
elements 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J) of the CAA because the commenter
asserts that West Virginia had failed to submit a five-year progress
report on its implementation of West Virginia's Regional Haze SIP and
also because EPA had not yet approved West Virginia's five-year
progress report for regional haze. Sierra Club referenced a July 18,
2008 SIP submittal from West Virginia for regional haze as the basis
for determining when the five-year progress report for West Virginia
was due.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the commenter that West Virginia's
five-year progress report was not submitted at the time EPA proposed to
approve West Virginia's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on
July 2, 2013. West Virginia submitted on April 30, 2013, as a SIP
revision, its five-year progress report of its approved regional haze,
to meet the progress report requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) impose a regulatory requirement for
an evaluation of West Virginia's progress towards meeting its
reasonable progress goals for Class I Federal areas located within West
Virginia and in Class I Federal areas outside West Virginia which may
be affected by emissions from inside West Virginia. EPA found West
Virginia's April 30, 2013 progress report SIP submittal complete on
June 13, 2013. EPA has taken action proposing approval on the SIP
revision. See 79 FR 14460, March 14, 2014. EPA disagrees with the
commenter that EPA's approval of West Virginia's five-year progress
report is a required structural element necessary before EPA may
approve West Virginia's infrastructure SIP for element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Nevertheless, from EPA's review of data provided by West Virginia
in its five-year progress report, including EPA's review of emissions
data from 2008 through 2011 on West Virginia EGUs from EPA's Clean Air
Markets Division (CAMD) as provided by the State, emissions of sulfur
dioxide (SO2), the primary contributor to visibility
impairment in the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association
of the Southeast (VISTAS) region, have declined significantly in the
State since the West Virginia Regional Haze SIP was submitted to EPA on
June 18, 2008. Specifically, West Virginia's five-year progress report
notes that in the EGU sector, EPA's CAMD data for 2010 and 2011 shows
EGU SO2 emissions in West Virginia are significantly below
even what was predicted for 2018. EPA's review of visibility data from
West Virginia in its five-year progress report also shows Class I areas
impacted by sources within West Virginia are all meeting or below their
reasonable progress goals. In addition, based on EPA's review of the
West Virginia five-year progress report, EPA has no reason to question
the accuracy of West Virginia's negative declaration to EPA pursuant to
40 CFR 51.308(h) that no revision to West Virginia's Regional Haze SIP
is needed at this time to achieve established goals for visibility
improvement and emissions reductions. Therefore, based upon EPA's
review of the relevant visibility data, emissions data, and modeling
results provided by West Virginia in the five-year progress report and
upon the analysis provided in the TSD which accompanied the NPR for
this rulemaking action, EPA continues to believe that the State's
existing SIP (including the Regional Haze SIP and CAIR) contains
adequate provisions prohibiting sources from emitting visibility
impairing pollutants in amounts which would interfere with neighboring
states' SIP measures to protect visibility.
    Also, as stated previously, the visibility and regional haze
program requirements under part C of Title I of the CAA do not change
with the establishment of a new NAAQS such as the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and
there are no applicable visibility obligations under part C
``triggered'' by section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective. Given this, West Virginia was under no obligation to address
section 110(a)(2)(J) in its 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP.
    Comment 4: Sierra Club contends that EPA must disapprove West
Virginia's infrastructure SIP revision because the submittal relies on
CAIR, considered by Sierra Club as a stopgap measure, for section
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and therefore fails to impose restrictions on
ozone sources and to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 2008
NAAQS. Sierra Club contends West Virginia cannot rely upon CAIR as an
enforceable emissions limit for 110(a)(2)(A). In addition, Sierra Club
suggests that EPA's statements are dismissive of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
requiring any more than the less stringent 1997 ozone NAAQS and states
that if states do not take any new actions to satisfy the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, the 2008 ozone NAAQS will not be met in many areas and states
will not attain and maintain the NAAQS. Sierra Club contends EPA must
disapprove the West Virginia infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS because West Virginia failed to adequately ensure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Sierra Club also states in its background comments that EPA may
approve an infrastructure SIP only if EPA finds the SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA and states such SIPs must
include emission limitations that result in compliance with the NAAQS.
Sierra Club further states in background that for a plan to be
adequate, it must demonstrate the measures, rules, and regulations in
the SIP are adequate to

provide for timely attainment and maintenance of the standard and cited
to 40 CFR 51.112 for support.
    Response 4: EPA disagrees with the commenter that West Virginia
cannot rely on CAIR for section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. As discussed
previously and as explained in detail in EPA's proposed rulemaking
action related to today's rulemaking action, EPA believes that in light
of the DC Circuit's decision to vacate CSAPR (see EME Homer City, 696
F.3d 7), and the court's order for EPA to ``continue administering CAIR
pending the promulgation of a valid replacement,'' it is appropriate
for EPA to rely at this time on CAIR to support approval of West
Virginia's 2008 eight-hour ozone infrastructure revision. EPA has been
ordered by the DC Circuit to develop a new rule, and to continue
implementing CAIR in the meantime. Unless the Supreme Court reverses or
otherwise modifies the DC Circuit's decision on CSAPR in EME Homer
City, EPA does not intend to act in a manner inconsistent with the
decision of the DC Circuit. Based on the current direction from the
court to continue administering CAIR, EPA believes that it is
appropriate for West Virginia to rely on CAIR's requirements and
provisions and is appropriate for EPA to consider CAIR for purposes of
assessing the adequacy of West Virginia's infrastructure SIP revision
with respect to ensuring attainment and maintenance of the 2008 NAAQS
while a valid replacement rule is developed and until submissions
complying with any such new rule are submitted by the states and acted
upon by EPA or until the EME Homer City case is resolved in a way that
provides different direction regarding CAIR and CSAPR.
    Furthermore, as neither the State of West Virginia nor EPA has
taken any action to remove CAIR from the West Virginia SIP, CAIR
remains part of the federally-approved SIP and can be considered in
determining whether the SIP as a whole meets the requirement for
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. In addition, EPA described in its TSD
accompanying the July 2, 2013 NPR proposing approval of portions of the
West Virginia 2008 infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS how West
Virginia had adequate provisions in its SIP, including, but not limited
to, regulations concerning control measures for nitrogen oxides (NOx)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC), such as 45CSR13, 45CSR14,
45CSR19, 45CSR21, and 45CSR29, as enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures, means, or techniques as necessary to meet
applicable requirements of the CAA.\4\ Therefore, EPA disagrees with
the commenter that EPA must disapprove the West Virginia infrastructure
SIP submittal for element 110(a)(2)(A) as CAIR and the other measures
identified in the TSD for 110(a)(2)(A) are enforceable limitations for
meeting applicable requirements in the CAA as EPA explained in detail
in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The TSD is available at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0299. While EPA's TSD did not expressly
reference CAIR in the discussion of West Virginia's measures
addressing 110(a)(2)(A), the omission by EPA was inadvertent as the
West Virginia ozone infrastructure SIP submittal included CAIR
amongst other measures for section 110(a)(2)(A) and EPA's review
included consideration of all the measures West Virginia included in
its submission, including CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA is reasonably
interpreted to require states to submit SIPs that reflect the first
step in their planning for attaining and maintaining a new or revised
NAAQS and that they contain enforceable control measures and a
demonstration that the state has the available tools and authority to
develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS. In light
of the structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position regarding
infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure
that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a
NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and
maintenance plans for each individual area of the state.
    EPA's interpretation that infrastructure SIPs are more general
planning SIPs is consistent with the statute as understood in light of
its history and structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it
did not include provisions requiring states and the EPA to label areas
as attainment or nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include
all areas of the state in ``air quality control regions'' (AQCRs) and
section 110 set forth the core substantive planning provisions for
these AQCRs. At that time, Congress anticipated that states would be
able to address air pollution quickly pursuant to the very general
planning provisions in section 110 and could bring all areas into
compliance with the NAAQS within five years. Moreover, at that time,
section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the section 110 plan provide for
``attainment'' of the NAAQS and section 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the
plan must include ``emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for
compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be
necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].'' In
1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not
sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time,
Congress for the first time added provisions requiring states and EPA
to identify whether areas of the state were violating the NAAQS (i.e.,
were nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment)
and established specific planning requirements in section 172 for areas
not meeting the NAAQS. In 1990, many areas still had air quality not
meeting the NAAQS and Congress again amended the CAA and added yet
another layer of more prescriptive planning requirements for each of
the NAAQS, with the primary provisions for ozone in section 182. At
that same time, Congress modified section 110 to remove references to
the section 110 SIP providing for attainment, including removing pre-
existing section 110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and renumbering
subparagraph (B) as section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally, Congress
replaced the clause ``as may be necessary to insure attainment and
maintenance [of the NAAQS]'' with ``as may be necessary or appropriate
to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.'' Thus, the CAA
has significantly evolved in the more than 40 years since it was
originally enacted. While at one time section 110 of the CAA did
provide the only detailed SIP planning provisions for states and
specified that such plans must provide for attainment of the NAAQS,
under the structure of the current CAA, section 110 is only the initial
stepping-stone in the planning process for a specific NAAQS. And, more
detailed, later-enacted provisions govern the substantive planning
process, including planning for attainment of the NAAQS.
    EPA believes that the proper inquiry at this juncture is whether
the State has met the basic structural SIP requirements appropriate at
the point in time EPA is acting upon the submittal. Moreover, as
addressed in EPA's proposed approval for this rulemaking action and
mentioned earlier, West Virginia submitted a list of existing emission
reduction measures in the SIP that control emissions of VOCs and NOx.
West Virginia's SIP revision reflects several provisions that have the
ability to reduce ground level ozone and its precursors. The West
Virginia SIP relies on measures and programs used to implement previous
ozone NAAQS. Because there is no substantive difference between the
previous ozone NAAQS and the more recent ozone

NAAQS, other than the level of the standard, the provisions relied on
by West Virginia will provide benefits for the new NAAQS; in other
words, the measures reduce overall ground-level ozone and its
precursors and are not limited to reducing ozone levels to meet one
specific NAAQS.
    EPA asserts that section 110 of the CAA is only one provision that
is part of the complicated structure governing implementation of the
NAAQS program under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be
interpreted in the context of not only that structure, but also of the
historical evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to
section 110 since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific
planning requirements of the CAA, EPA reasonably interprets the
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the plan provide
for ``implementation, maintenance and enforcement'' to mean that the
infrastructure SIP must contain enforceable emission limits that will
aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the state
demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce a
NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and an enforcement program.
With regard to the requirement for emission limitations, EPA has
interpreted this to mean for purposes of section 110, that the state
may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue
or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit. As EPA
stated in ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' dated
September 13, 2013 (Infrastructure SIP Guidance), ``[t]he conceptual
purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the air
agency's SIP contains the necessary structural requirements for the new
or revised NAAQS, whether by establishing that the SIP already contains
the necessary provisions, by making a substantive SIP revision to
update the SIP, or both. Overall, the infrastructure SIP submission
process provides an opportunity . . . to review the basic structural
requirements of the air agency's air quality management program in
light of each new or revised NAAQS.'' Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p.
2.
    The commenter's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its argument
that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits adequate to
provide for timely attainment and maintenance of the standard is also
not supported. As an initial matter, EPA notes this regulatory
provision was initially promulgated and ``restructured and
consolidated'' prior to the CAA Amendments of 1990, in which Congress
removed all references to ``attainment'' in section 110(a)(2)(A). And,
it is clear on its face that 40 CFR 51.112 applies to plans
specifically designed to attain the NAAQS. EPA interprets these
provisions to apply when states are developing ``control strategy''
SIPs such as the detailed attainment and maintenance plans required
under other provisions of the CAA, as amended in 1977 and again in
1990, such as section 175A and 182, and not to infrastructure SIPs. In
the preamble to EPA's 1986 action ``restructuring and consolidating''
provisions in part 51, EPA stated that the new attainment demonstration
provisions in the 1977 Amendments to the CAA were ``beyond the scope''
of the rulemaking. See 51 FR 40656, November 7, 1986. It is important
to note, however, that EPA's action in 1986 was not to establish new
substantive planning requirements, but rather was meant merely to
consolidate and restructure provisions that had previously been
promulgated. EPA noted that it had already issued guidance addressing
the new ``Part D'' attainment planning obligations. Id. Also, as to
maintenance regulations, EPA expressly stated that it was not making
any revisions other than to re-number those provisions. Id. at 40657.
    Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements
interpreting the provisions of new ``part D'' of the CAA, it is clear
that the regulations being restructured and consolidated in the 1986
action on part 51 were intended to address control strategy plans. In
the preamble, EPA clearly stated that 40 CFR 51.112 was replacing 40
CFR 51.13 (``Control strategy: SOX and PM (portion)''),
51.14 (``Control strategy: CO, HC, OX and NO2
(portion)''), 51.80 (``Demonstration of attainment: Pb (portion)''),
and 51.82 (``Air quality data (portion)''). Id. at 40660. Thus, the
present-day 40 CFR 51.112 contains consolidated provisions that are
focused on control strategy SIPs, and an infrastructure SIP is not such
a plan.
    Therefore, EPA finds 40 CFR 51.112 inapplicable to its analysis of
the West Virginia ozone infrastructure SIP. EPA finds that CAIR and the
other measures identified in the TSD for this rulemaking for section
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA are enforceable limitations and measures for
limiting emissions of NOX and VOC for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Comment 5: Sierra Club contends that EPA must disapprove West
Virginia's infrastructure SIP revision because it relies on the
``vacated'' rules, CAIR and CSAPR, to meet section 110(a)(2)(F)
requirements that ensure source owners and operators install, maintain,
and replace monitoring equipment and provide periodic reporting.
    Response 5: First, as EPA noted earlier, CAIR has not been
``vacated'' as stated in Sierra Club's comment but was ultimately
remanded by the D.C. Circuit to EPA without vacatur, and EPA continues
to implement CAIR.\5\ Further, EPA notes that (as explained in detail
above) as EPA continues to administer CAIR as directed by the D.C.
Circuit, EPA believes it is appropriate for West Virginia's
infrastructure SIP to rely on CAIR at this time until a new rule is
developed. Therefore, as CAIR is enforceable and being implemented,
West Virginia can cite to a provision related to CAIR for its
submission for addressing section 110(a)(2)(F) requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As discussed above, since the vacatur of CSAPR in August
2012 and with continued implementation of CAIR per the direction of
the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City, EPA has approved redesignations
of areas to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in which
states have relied on CAIR as an enforceable measure. See 77 FR
76415, December 28, 2012 (redesignation of Huntingdon-Ashland, West
Virginia for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS which was proposed in 77 FR
68076, November 15, 2012); 78 FR 59841, September 30, 2013
(redesignation of Wheeling, West Virginia for 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS which was proposed in 77 FR 73575, December 11, 2012); and 78
FR 56168, September 12, 2013 (redesignation of Parkersburg, West
Virginia for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS which was proposed in 77 FR
73560, December 11, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as discussed in EPA's TSD, West Virginia's
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS listed numerous
SIP provisions (including the provisions related to CAIR as well as
regulations 45CSR13, 45CSR14, and 45CSR19) to support that the existing
West Virginia SIP ensures source owners and operators install, maintain
and replace monitoring equipment, provide periodic reporting and
correlate reports with emission standards under the CAA for section
110(a)(2)(F). EPA's TSD addressed how West Virginia's statutory and
regulatory provisions provided for these requirements and most of these
requirements are not related to CAIR. While 45CSR39 and 45CSR40, which
are in the approved West Virginia SIP, address interstate transport of
PM2.5, NOX, and ozone and are related to CAIR,
these SIP provisions (45CSR39 and 45CSR40) also contain reporting and
monitoring requirements (as are required for 110(a)(2)(F)) including
references to federal provisions within 40 CFR part 75. Because EPA
continues to implement CAIR and because the West Virginia SIP contains
several provisions itemized in the TSD for this

rulemaking action addressing monitoring and reporting requirements for
sources in West Virginia, EPA finds the West Virginia infrastructure
SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS adequately addressed section 110(a)(2)(F),
and EPA is taking final rulemaking action to approve the infrastructure
SIP submission with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F)
of the CAA.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the following infrastructure elements or portions
thereof of West Virginia's SIP revision: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA has taken
separate rulemaking action on the portions of section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to West Virginia's PSD program and
is taking separate action on section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates to
section 128 (State Boards). This rulemaking action does not include
section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, since this element is not
required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section
110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a separate process. This rulemaking
action also does not include action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
because this element, or portions thereof, is not required to be
submitted by a state until the EPA has quantified a state's
obligations. See EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    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 action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because 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 rule 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.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, which satisfies certain infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
for the State of West Virginia, may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Ozone.

    Dated: March 21, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising
the entry for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. The amendment reads as follows:

Sec.  52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of non-regulatory SIP   Applicable geographic   State submittal     EPA approval          Additional
           revision                     area                 date              date             explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)              Statewide............   8/31/11, 2/17/12  10/17/12, 77 FR   Approval of the
 Infrastructure Requirements                                              63736.            following PSD-
 for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone                                                                  related elements or
 NAAQS.                                                                                portions thereof:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), and (J),
                                                                                except taking no
                                                                                action on the
                                                                                definition of
                                                                                ``regulated NSR
                                                                                pollutant'' found at
                                                                                45CSR14 section 2.66
                                                                                only as it relates
                                                                                to the requirement
                                                                                to include
                                                                                condensable
                                                                                emissions of
                                                                                particulate matter
                                                                                in that definition.
                                                                                See Sec.
                                                                                52.2522(i).
                                                                2/17/12  4/7/2014 [Insert  This action addresses
                                                                          Federal           the following CAA
                                                                          Register page     elements, or
                                                                          number where      portions thereof:
                                                                          the document      110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                          begins and        (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                          date].            (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-07589 Filed 4-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P