[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 1, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39505-39517]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13585]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0171; FRL-10010-86-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; Redesignation of the Marshall
Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the
Area's Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a

redesignation request and state implementation plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of West Virginia related to the national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS or Standard) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur
dioxide (SO2) NAAQS (2010 SO2 NAAQS). On March
18, 2020, West Virginia, through the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP), submitted a redesignation request for
the Marshall, West Virginia SO2 Nonattainment Area (Marshall
Area or Area). In conjunction with its request, WVDEP submitted SIP
revisions comprised of a maintenance plan providing for continued
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS for a period of ten years
following redesignation of the Area, SO2 emissions limits
for the Mitchell Power Plant (Mitchell), and a modeling analysis
demonstrating that the Mitchell limits provide for attainment in the
Area. The effect of this proposal, if finalized, would change the
designation of the Marshall Area from nonattainment to attainment of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0171 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2308. Ms. Powers can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is proposing to take the following
actions: (1) Approve and incorporate into the SIP the SO2
limits and associated compliance and monitoring parameters in consent
order CO-SIP-C-2019-13 for Mitchell; (2) determine that the air quality
modeling submitted by the WVDEP demonstrates that the Marshall Area has
attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as a result of compliance with
the consent order limits for Mitchell; (3) approve and incorporate into
the SIP West Virginia's plan for maintaining the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in the Marshall Area through 2030 pursuant to section 175A of the
CAA; and (4) redesignate the Marshall Area to attainment for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment
III. EPA's Analysis of West Virginia's Redesignation Request for the
Marshall Area
    A. The Marshall Area Has attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
    1. Attainment Demonstration and Longer Term Averaging
    2. Modeling Analysis
    B. West Virginia Has Met All Applicable Requirements of Section
110 and Part D of the CAA for the Marshall Area and EPA Has Fully
Approved the Applicable Implementation Plan Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA
    a. Section 110 General Requirements for SIPs
    b. Part D Requirements
    i. Subpart 1 Requirements
    (1) Section 172 Requirements
    (2) Section 173
    (3) Section 175A
    (4) Section 176 Requirements
    ii. Subpart 5 Requirements
    C. The Air Quality Improvements in the Marshall Area Are Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions
    D. West Virginia Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan for the
Marshall Area
IV. The Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions
V. Proposed Actions
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA published a new 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an
ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations
does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of
40 CFR part 50. On August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191), EPA designated 29
areas of the country as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, including the Marshall Area in West Virginia. These designations
are referred to as ``round one'' SO2 area designations which
were effective on October 4, 2013. In that action, the Marshall Area
was designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS based on
data collected at the Moundsville, West Virginia ambient air quality
monitoring station for calendar years 2009 through 2011. The Marshall
Area is comprised of the Clay, Franklin, and Washington Tax Districts
of Marshall County, West Virginia.
    Under CAA section 191(a), attainment plan SIPs were due for areas
designated nonattainment in round one 18 months after the effective
date of designation, or April 4, 2015. Such SIPs were required by CAA
section 192(a) to provide for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously
as practicable, but no later than five years from the effective date of
nonattainment designation, or October 4, 2018. West Virginia submitted
an attainment SIP on March 17, 2017 (2017 SIP).\1\ The SIP addressed
the required elements of an attainment SIP under CAA section 172(c),
including an attainment demonstration that the State asserted showed
attainment of the 2010 SO2 Standard, SO2
emissions limits for the Mitchell Power Plant, reasonably available
control measures including reasonably available control technology
(RACM/RACT), reasonable further progress (RFP), contingency measures,
and certification that nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit
program requirements were being met. The 2017 SIP included a West
Virginia Compliance Order on Consent (2016 consent order) that required
Kentucky Power Company, the operator of American Electric Power's (AEP)
Mitchell Power Plant, to comply with an SO2 maximum
emissions limit from Units 1 and 2, of 6,175 pounds per hour (lbs/hr)
on a 30-day rolling average, along with associated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, starting on January 1, 2017.
The March 18, 2020 submittal requesting redesignation included a

demonstration showing attainment, a maintenance plan, contingency
measures, and a December 2, 2019 consent order (2019 consent order)
with Kentucky Power for Mitchell with lower SO2 emissions
limits based on modeling with a changed stack height. Specifically, the
2019 consent order establishes an SO2 emissions limit for
Mitchell Units 1 and 2 as a maximum of 3,149 lbs/hr on a 30-day rolling
average, with compliance parameters including continuous emissions
monitoring, recordkeeping including a calculation of the daily 30-day
average, reporting of deviations from the requirements and semi-annual
compliance reporting. Compliance with the limits and other provisions
in the 2019 consent order were required starting on January 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On March 18, 2016, EPA made a finding of failure to submit
nonattainment area SIPs for 19 nonattainment areas, including the
Marshall Area. EPA's letter to West Virginia dated September 27,
2017 confirmed that West Virginia's March 17, 2017 submittal
corrected the deficiency identified in the finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 110(k)(2) through (4), EPA was required to take
action to approve or disapprove West Virginia's 2017 SIP within 12
months of determining it to be complete, but EPA did not take timely
action. Subsequently, the Center for Biological Diversity and other
plaintiffs (CBD) sued EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California seeking a court order to compel EPA's action on
West Virginia's 2017 SIP and several other SIPs for other areas in the
nation. Center for Biological Diversity, et al., v. Wheeler, No. 4:18-
cv-03544-YGR. That lawsuit resulted in the plaintiffs and EPA agreeing
to a schedule, entered by the court as an order, for EPA to take action
on the covered SIPs by certain deadlines. October 30, 2020 was the
court ordered deadline given for EPA to take action on West Virginia's
2017 SIP. The order also provided that if EPA issues a redesignation to
attainment for any area for which the order required EPA action on a
submitted SIP covered by the order, then EPA's obligation to take
action on that SIP's CAA section 172(c) elements would be automatically
terminated. Consequently, if EPA takes final action to redesignate the
Marshall, West Virginia nonattainment area to attainment before October
30, 2020, EPA will not be required to take action on the 2017 SIP.

II. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment

    Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), there are five criteria which must
be met before a nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment:
    1. EPA has determined that the relevant NAAQS has been attained in
the area;
    2. The applicable implementation plan has been fully approved by
EPA under section 110(k);
    3. EPA has determined that improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the
SIP, Federal regulations, and other permanent and enforceable
reductions;
    4. EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including a
contingency plan, for the area under section 175A of the CAA; and,
    5. The state has met all applicable requirements for the area under
section 110 and part D.

III. EPA's Analysis of West Virginia's Redesignation Request for the
Marshall Area

A. The Marshall Area Has Attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS

    EPA's 2014 Guidance \2\ for areas designated nonattainment explains
that there are generally two components needed to support an attainment
determination, which should be considered interdependently. First, to
demonstrate that it is meeting the Standard, an SO2
nonattainment area which was designated based on air quality monitoring
data would need to have three consecutive calendar years of air quality
monitoring data showing that the area is meeting the Standard. The data
would need to be complete and quality-assured, consistent with 40 CFR
part 58 requirements, and other relevant EPA guidance, and properly
submitted to the Air Quality System (AQS) database of the EPA's
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). Areas relying on
monitoring data alone to support a determination of attainment are also
expected to provide a demonstration (via air quality modeling) that the
affected monitor(s) is or are located in the area of maximum
concentration. If there are air quality monitors located in the area,
but none are located in the area of predicted maximum concentration,
then air quality dispersion modeling will generally be needed to
estimate SO2 concentrations in the area for purposes of
determining attainment. If both monitoring and modeling evidence is
available, EPA will consider all available evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Guidance for 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions, April 23, 2014, page 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.17, the SO2 Standard
is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the three-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum one-hour average
concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb, as determined in
accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. The Standard must be met
at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area. There is only one
monitor in the Marshall Area, which is located at the Moundsville
National Guard Armory in Marshall County. The data from this monitor
has been certified and uploaded to EPA's AQS website, through December
31, 2019, and shows an attaining design value for the most recent
three-year period (2017 through 2019) of 8 ppb. The 2019 AQS design
value report is included in the docket for this rulemaking action and
is summarized in Table 1.

                   Table 1--Marshall Area 99th Percentile of 1-Hour Daily Maximum SO2 Concentrations (ppb), and 2017-2019 Design Value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2017-2019
                              Monitor                                   Monitor ID          2017             2018             2019         design value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moundsville National Guard Armory..................................     54-051-1002                7                9                9                8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Attainment Demonstration and Longer Term Averaging
    CAA section 172(c)(1) directs states with areas designated as
nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for
attainment of the NAAQS. The control strategy requirements that SIPs
must meet are further delineated in 40 CFR part 51 subpart G. EPA has
long required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four
fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability,
replicability, and accountability. General Preamble for

Implementation of title I of the CAA. 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at
13567-68. Attainment plans for the SO2 NAAQS must consist of
two components: (1) Emission limits and other control measures that
assure implementation of permanent, enforceable and necessary emission
controls, and (2) a modeling analysis which meets the requirements of
40 CFR part 51, appendix W, which demonstrates that these emission
limits and control measures provide for timely attainment of the
primary SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but by no
later than the attainment date for the affected area. In all cases, the
emission limits and control measures must be accompanied by appropriate
methods and conditions to determine compliance with the respective
emission limits and control measures and must be quantifiable (i.e., a
specific amount of emission reduction can be ascribed to the measures),
fully enforceable (specifying clear, unambiguous and measurable
requirements for which compliance can be practicably determined),
replicable (the procedures for determining compliance are sufficiently
specific and non-subjective so that two independent entities applying
the procedures would obtain the same result), and accountable (source
specific limits must be permanent and must reflect the assumptions used
in the SIP demonstrations).
    EPA's April 2014 guidance recommends that the emission limits be
expressed as short-term average limits (e.g., addressing emissions
averaged over one or three hours), but also describes the option to
utilize emission limits with longer averaging times of up to 30 days,
so long as the state meets various suggested criteria. See April 2014
guidance, pages 22 to 39. The April 2014 Guidance recommends that--
should states and sources utilize longer averaging times--the longer
term average limit should be set at an adjusted level that reflects a
stringency comparable to the 1-hour average limit at the critical
emission value (CEV) shown to provide for attainment that the plan
otherwise would have set.
    The April 2014 guidance provides an extensive discussion of EPA's
rationale for concluding that appropriately set, comparably stringent
limitations based on averaging times for periods as long as 30 days can
be found to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In
evaluating this option, EPA considered the nature of the Standard,
conducted detailed analyses of the impact of use of 30-day average
limits on the prospects for attaining the Standard, and carefully
reviewed how best to achieve an appropriate balance among the various
factors that warrant consideration in judging whether a state's plan
provides for attainment. Id. at pages 22 to 39. See also Id. at
appendices B, C, and D.
    As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb. In a year with 365 days
of valid monitoring data, the 99th percentile would be the fourth
highest daily maximum 1-hour value. The 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
including this form of determining compliance with the Standard, was
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit in Nat'l Envt'l Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d
803 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Because the Standard has this form, a single
exceedance of the NAAQS's 75 ppb level does not create a violation of
the Standard. Instead, at issue is whether a source operating in
compliance with a properly set emission limit with a longer term
average could cause exceedances of 75 ppb, and if so the resulting
frequency and magnitude of such exceedances, and in particular whether
EPA can have reasonable confidence that a properly set longer term
average limit will provide that the 3-year average of the annual fourth
highest daily maximum 1-hour average value will be at or below 75 ppb.
A synopsis of how EPA judges whether such plans ``provide for
attainment,'' based on modeling of projected allowable emissions and in
light of the NAAQS's form for determining attainment at monitoring
sites, follows.
    For SO2 attainment demonstrations based on 1-hour
emission limits, the standard approach is to conduct modeling using
fixed emission rates. The maximum emission rate that would be modeled
to result in attainment (i.e., in an ``average year'' \3\ shows three,
not four days with maximum hourly levels exceeding 75 ppb) is labeled
the ``critical emission value.'' The modeling process for identifying
this CEV inherently considers the numerous variables that affect
ambient concentrations of SO2, such as meteorological data,
background concentrations, and topography. In the standard approach,
the state would then provide for attainment by setting a continuously
applicable 1-hour emission limit at this CEV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An ``average year'' is used to mean a year with average air
quality. While 40 CFR part 50 appendix T provides for averaging
three years of 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour values (e.g.,
the fourth highest daily maximum 1-hour concentration in a year with
365 days with valid data), this discussion and an example below uses
a single ``average year'' in order to simplify the illustration of
relevant principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes that some sources have highly variable emissions,
for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating
rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed
control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given
hour do not exceed the CEV. EPA also acknowledges the concern that
longer term emission limits can allow short periods with emissions
above the CEV which, if coincident with meteorological conditions
conducive to high SO2 concentrations, could in turn create
the possibility of an exceedance of the NAAQS level occurring on a day
when an exceedance would not have occurred if emissions were
continuously controlled at the level corresponding to the CEV. However,
for several reasons, EPA believes that the approach recommended in its
April 2014 Guidance document suitably addresses this concern. First,
from a practical perspective, EPA expects the actual emission profile
of a source subject to an appropriately set longer term average limit
to be similar to the emission profile of a source subject to an
analogous 1-hour average limit. EPA expects this similarity because it
has recommended that the longer term average limit be set at a level
that is comparably stringent to the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit,
reflecting a downward adjustment from the CEV that is proportionate to
the anticipated variability in the source's emissions profile. As a
result, EPA expects either form of emission limit to yield a comparable
reduction in SO2 emissions and comparable air quality.
    Second, from a more theoretical perspective, EPA has compared the
likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions
under an appropriately set longer term limit, as compared to the likely
air quality with the source having maximum allowable emissions under
the comparable 1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average
limit scenario, the source is presumed at all times to emit at the
critical emission level, and in the longer term average limit scenario,
the source is presumed occasionally to emit at levels higher than the
CEV but on average, and presumably at most times, to emit well below
the CEV. In an ``average year,'' compliance with the 1-hour limit is
expected to result in three exceedance days (i.e., three days with
maximum hourly values above 75 ppb) and a fourth day with a maximum
hourly value at 75 ppb. By comparison, with the source complying with a
longer

term limit, it is possible that additional exceedances of 75 ppb would
occur that would not occur in the 1-hour limit scenario (if emissions
exceed the CEV at times when meteorology is conducive to poor air
quality). However, this comparison must also factor in the likelihood
that exceedances of 75 ppb that would be expected in the 1-hour limit
scenario would not occur in the longer term limit scenario. This result
arises because the longer term limit requires lower emissions most of
the time (because the limit is set well below the CEV), so a source
complying with an appropriately set longer term limit is likely to have
lower emissions at critical times than would be the case if the source
were emitting as allowed with a 1-hour limit.
    As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a
source that always emits 1,000 pounds of SO2 per hour, which
results in air quality at the level of the NAAQS (i.e., results in a
design value of 75 ppb). Suppose further that in an ``average year,''
these emissions cause the five highest maximum daily average 1-hour
concentrations to be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 ppb, 75 ppb, and 70 ppb. Then
suppose that the source becomes subject to a 30-day average emission
limit of 700 pounds per hour. It is theoretically possible for a source
meeting this limit to have emissions that occasionally exceed 1,000
pounds per hour, but with a typical emissions profile, emissions would
much more commonly be between 600 and 800 pounds per hour. In this
simplified example, assume a zero background concentration, which
allows one to assume a linear relationship between emissions and air
quality. (A nonzero background concentration would make the mathematics
more difficult but would give similar results.) Air quality will depend
on what emissions happen on what critical hours, but suppose that
emissions at the relevant times on these 5 days are 800 pounds per
hour, 1,100 pounds per hour, 500 pounds per hour, 900 pounds per hour,
and 1,200 pounds per hour, respectively. (This is a conservative
example because the average of these emissions, 900 pounds per hour, is
well over the 30-day average emission limit.) These emissions would
result in daily maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 ppb, 99 ppb, 40
ppb, 67.5 ppb, and 84 ppb. In this example, the fifth day would have an
exceedance of 75 ppb that would not otherwise have occurred, but the
third day would not have exceedances that otherwise would have
occurred, and the fourth day would be below rather than at 75 ppb. In
this example, the fourth highest maximum daily 1-hour concentration
under the 30-day average would be 67.5 ppb.
    This simplified example illustrates the findings of a more
complicated statistical analysis that EPA conducted using a range of
scenarios using actual plant data. As described in appendix B of EPA's
April 2014 Guidance, EPA found that the requirement for lower average
emissions over a longer averaging period is highly likely to yield
better air quality than is required with a comparably stringent 1-hour
limit. Based on analyses described in appendix B of its 2014 guidance,
EPA expects that an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions
under an appropriately set comparably stringent 30-day average limit is
likely to have the net effect of having a lower number of exceedances
of 75 ppb and better air quality than an emission profile with maximum
allowable emissions under a 1-hour emission limit at the CEV. This
result provides a compelling policy rationale for allowing the use of a
longer averaging period, in appropriate circumstances where the facts
indicate this result can be expected to occur.
    The question then becomes whether this approach--which is likely to
produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may
produce some unexpected exceedances above the CEV--meets the
requirement in section 110(a)(1) and 172(c)(1) for state implementation
plans to ``provide for attainment'' of the NAAQS. For SO2,
as for other pollutants, it is generally impossible to design a
nonattainment area plan in the present that will guarantee that
attainment will occur in the future. A variety of factors can cause a
well-designed attainment plan to fail and unexpectedly not result in
attainment, for example if meteorology occurs that is more conducive to
poor air quality than was anticipated in the plan. Therefore, in
determining whether a plan meets the requirement to provide for
attainment, EPA's task is commonly to judge not whether the plan
provides absolute certainty that attainment will in fact occur, but
rather whether the plan provides an adequate level of confidence of
prospective NAAQS attainment. From this perspective, in evaluating use
of a 30-day average limit, EPA must weigh the likely net effect on air
quality. Such an evaluation must consider the risk that occasions with
meteorology conducive to high concentrations will have elevated
emissions leading to exceedances that would not otherwise have occurred
and must also weigh the likelihood that the requirement for lower
emissions on average will result in days not having exceedances that
would have been expected with emissions at the CEV. Additional policy
considerations, such as in this case the desirability of accommodating
real world emissions variability without significant risk of
violations, are also appropriate factors for EPA to weigh in judging
whether a plan provides a reasonable degree of confidence that the plan
will lead to attainment. Based on these considerations, especially
given the high likelihood that a continuously enforceable limit
averaged over as long as 30 days, determined in accordance with EPA's
guidance, will result in attainment, EPA believes as a general matter
that such limits, if appropriately determined, can reasonably be
considered to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    The April 2014 Guidance offers specific recommendations for
determining an appropriate longer term average limit. The recommended
method starts with determination of the 1-hour emission limit that
would provide for attainment (i.e., the CEV), and applies an adjustment
factor to determine the (lower) level of the longer term average
emission limit that would be estimated to have a stringency comparable
to the otherwise necessary 1-hour emission limit. This method uses a
database of continuous emission data reflecting the type of control
that the source will be using to comply with the SIP emission limits,
which (if compliance requires new controls) may require use of an
emission database from another source. The recommended method involves
using these data to compute a complete set of emission averages,
computed according to the averaging time and averaging procedures of
the prospective emission limitation. In this recommended method, the
ratio of the 99th percentile among these long term averages to the 99th
percentile of the 1-hour values represents an adjustment factor that
may be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour emission limit to determine a
longer term average emission limit that may be considered comparably
stringent.\4\ The guidance provided extensive recommendations regarding
the calculation of the adjustment factor, for example to derive the
adjustment factor from long term average versus 1-hour emissions
statistics computed in accordance with the compliance

determination procedures that the state is applying. These
recommendations are intended to yield the most pertinent estimate of
the impact of applying a longer term average limit on the stringency of
the limit in the relevant context. The April 2014 Guidance also
addresses a variety of related topics, such as the potential utility of
setting supplemental emission limits, such as mass-based limits, to
reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated emission levels that
might occur under the longer term emission rate limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, if the CEV is 1,000 pounds of SO2
per hour, and a suitable adjustment factor is determined to be 70
percent, the recommended longer term average limit would be 700
pounds per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are
described in appendix A of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40
CFR part 51, appendix W).\5\ In 2005, EPA promulgated AERMOD as the
Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range of
regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example in
estimating SO2 concentrations) in all types of terrain based
on extensive developmental and performance evaluation. Supplemental
guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the
SO2 Standard is provided in appendix A to the April 2014
SO2 Guidance document referenced above. Appendix A provides
extensive guidance on the modeling domain, the source inputs, assorted
types of meteorological data, and background concentrations.
Consistency with the recommendations in this guidance is generally
necessary for the attainment demonstration to offer adequately reliable
assurance that the plan provides for attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA published revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality
Models (40 CFR part 51, appendix W) on January 17, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS in the entire area designated as nonattainment
(i.e., not just at the violating monitor) by using air quality
dispersion modeling (See appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) to show that the
mix of sources and enforceable control measures and emission rates in
an identified area will not lead to a violation of the SO2
NAAQS. For a short-term (i.e., 1-hour) Standard, EPA believes that
dispersion modeling, using allowable emissions and addressing
stationary sources in the affected area (and in some cases those
sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect
attainment in the area) is technically appropriate, efficient and
effective in demonstrating attainment in nonattainment areas because it
takes into consideration combinations of meteorological and emission
source operating conditions that may contribute to peak ground-level
concentrations of SO2.
    The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be
processed with the most recent version of AERMET. Estimated
concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should
follow the form of the Standard, and should be calculated as described
in section <IP_ADDRESS> of the August 23, 2010 clarification memo on
``Applicability of appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr
SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (U.S. EPA,
2010a).
    In the modeling analysis for Marshall, attainment was demonstrated
at an hourly SO2 emission rate of 0.31 pounds per million
British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) from both generating units at the
Mitchell Power Plant, which equates to a 1-hour modeled CEV of 5,222.08
lbs/hr (both units combined). West Virginia submitted an analysis of
emissions from October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2016 to determine
a rolling 30-day average emission rate that would be of comparable
stringency to a 1-hour limit at the modeled emission rate, as suggested
in the April 2014 Guidance. West Virginia followed the steps
established by Appendix C, Example Determination of Longer Term Average
Emission Limits of the April 2014 Guidance, including the evaluation of
five years of historical data and the distribution of the hourly and
30-day averages. The 99th percentile value among the hourly data and
the 99th percentile value among the 30 operating-day period averages
were each computed. In order to calculate the 30-day average, only
operating days were included in the average. An operating day is a day
in which one or both of units had at least one hour of emissions data
reported. The ratio of these two values was an adjustment factor of
60.3 percent. Multiplying this adjustment factor by the CEV serves to
estimate the 30-day average limit that is comparably stringent to a 1-
hour limit at the CEV. By this means, West Virginia calculated a 30-day
average limit of 3,149 pounds of SO2 per hour on a 30-day
rolling average basis (both units combined). EPA agrees that West
Virginia appropriately determined the CEV, the adjustment factor, and
the resulting 30-day average limit.
2. Modeling Analysis
    The Moundsville Armory monitor was sited to assess the
SO2 impacts caused by the major SO2 sources
located along the Ohio River Valley in Marshall County. These
facilities have had significant contributions of SO2
emissions to the area and impacted the Moundsville monitoring site for
over three decades. During the 2009-2011 time frame upon which the
nonattainment designation was based, the sources included the R.E.
Burger Power Plant in Belmont County, Ohio, the Kammer Power Plant, and
the Rain CII Carbon Plant, which have all permanently shut down, and
the Eagle Natrium, LLC plant, which now burns natural gas, and the
Mitchell Power Plant. Mitchell Power Plant is the remaining primary
source of SO2 in the Area that contributes to the
Moundsville monitor, which is located approximately 11 kilometers
northeast of Mitchell. However, the attainment modeling submitted in
the 2017 SIP showed that the maximum SO2 concentration
within the Area is located 0.75 kilometers east-northeast of the
Mitchell Power Plant.
    Because the Moundsville Armory monitor is not at the location of
maximum concentration, a modeling demonstration is required to show
that SO2 concentrations throughout the Area show attainment.
West Virginia's March 18, 2020, SIP submittal includes a modeling
analysis to show that the Area will attain the 2010 SO2
NAAQS based on the SO2 emission limit established for
Mitchell Power Plant in a 2019 consent order with WVDEQ. EPA's analysis
of the West Virginia modeling is more fully described in a Modeling
Technical Support Document (TSD) that is provided in the docket for
this rulemaking action and summarized below.
    The modeling protocol was developed by West Virginia in September
of 2016 and periodically revised throughout the development of the 2017
attainment SIP modeling demonstration. Final revisions to the protocol
were made in December of 2016 and reflect the procedures that were used
in the submitted 2017 attainment SIP modeling analysis. Although WVDEP
did not subsequently alter the modeling protocol, WVDEP revised the
attainment SIP modeling inputs in July 2019 to change the Mitchell
stack height used in the modeling analysis to determine the lower
limits needed to attain the SO2 Standard. The modeling
analysis was submitted as part of West Virginia's 2020 redesignation
request and was conducted in accordance with appendix A of EPA's April
2014 Guidance and appendix W to 40 CFR part 51--Guideline on Air
Quality Models, that

was published on January 17, 2017 \6\ and became effective May 22,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/appendix_w/2016/AppendixW_2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    West Virginia developed its modeling analysis for the Marshall,
West Virginia SO2 redesignation request in July 2019 using
AERMOD version 18081, which was the most current version of the model
available when the modeling was being performed. AERMOD is a refined,
steady-state (both emissions and meteorology over a 1-hour time step),
multiple source, air-dispersion model that was originally promulgated
by the EPA as part of its December 2005 revision to the Guideline on
Air Quality Models, and is the preferred model to use for industrial
sources in this type of air quality analysis. At the time West Virginia
was preparing the 2017 SO2 attainment SIP, the available
version of AERMOD was version 15181, which was made available by EPA's
Support Center for Air Quality Models \7\ on July 24, 2015. On April
24, 2018, EPA released AERMOD version 18081. For the March 18, 2020
redesignation request, West Virginia re-ran the model using AERMOD
18081. The most notable changes between version 18081 and version 15181
of the model was the inclusion of an alternate surface friction option
(``ADJ_U*'') and the allowance for the use of prognostic meteorological
data as regulatory default options according to the final modeling
guideline (40 CFR part 51 appendix W), released on December 20, 2016.
The ADJ_U* option was used in the latest modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-preferred-and-recommended-models#aermod.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AERMOD system used in the modeling demonstration is comprised
of several preprocessors that are needed to develop the files necessary
to run the air-dispersion model. These preprocessors include the
meteorological preprocessors AERMET \8\ and AERSURFACE,\9\ as well as
the building preprocessor, BPIPPRM, to calculate building downwash
parameters and the terrain preprocessor, AERMAP,\10\ to determine
emission source and receptor elevations used in the final SIP modeling
analysis. The primary SO2 emitting facility remaining in
operation and impacting the Marshall Area is the Mitchell Power
Plant.\11\ To ensure maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
the Marshall Area, air dispersion modeling was conducted for the
SO2 emissions from the Mitchell Plant to show that the
Marshall Area will continue to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
The Mitchell Plant consists of two coal-fired electric generating units
(EGU) rated at 800 megawatts (MW) net each, equipped with an
electrostatic precipitator for particulate control, selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) for nitrogen oxide and mercury control, and a
limestone-based flue gas desulfurization system for SO2
control. The plant is located in the Ohio River Valley in Marshall
County, West Virginia, approximately 11 kilometers southwest of
Moundsville, West Virginia. The units were modeled as point sources and
a load analysis was performed at full load, 75% load, and 50% load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection
Agency Regulatory Model Meteorological Processor.
    \9\ American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection
Agency Regulatory Model Land Cover Processor.
    \10\ American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection
Agency Regulatory Model Terrain Preprocessor.
    \11\ See Round 1 SO2 designations TSD for West
Virginia for EPA's analysis of emissions and boundaries for the
Marshall Area, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/wv-tsd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The meteorological inputs used were developed for the period 2011
through 2015 using Version 18081 of AERMET using Wheeling Airport
surface data along with one minute and five minute data from the
Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) located at the site. Upper
Air Data was sourced from the Greater Pittsburgh International Airport
(KPIT) site through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Earth System Research Laboratory Radiosonde Database.
    The modeled design concentration is the combination of the
appropriate background concentration (section 8.3 of appendix W--
Guideline on Air Quality Models) and the estimated modeled impact of
the Mitchell Plant and any other identified nearby sources, which in
this case was none. A comparison of the modeled design concentrations
for each load case to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS is shown on Table
2.

Table 2--Summary of West Virginia SO2 Modeling Demonstration Results, in
                 Micrograms per Cubic Meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           West Virginia
                                            1-hour SO2      1-hour SO2
                  Case                     concentration   NAAQS ([mu]g/
                                           ([mu]g/m\3\)        m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Load...............................           196.2           196.4
75% Load................................           187.9           196.4
50% Load................................           175.5           196.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The West Virginia modeling demonstration generally follows guidance
included in appendix A of EPA's 2014 Guidance and EPA's revised
``Guideline on Air Quality Models'' published on January 17, 2017 (82
FR 5182). Peak model concentrations from the compliance run were 196.2
[mu]g/m\3\. The modeled emission rates reflect emission rates contained
in the 2019 consent order between West Virginia and Kentucky Power that
are part of the SIP submittal, and which became enforceable at the
state level on January 1, 2020, and which will become Federally
enforceable if this proposed rulemaking is finalized. The modeling
demonstration properly characterized source limits, local
meteorological data, background concentrations and provided an adequate
model receptor grid to capture maximum modeled concentrations. The
modeling simulations show that even at the worst-case scenario, with
the Mitchell facility operating at full capacity at the allowable
emission limits, the design value would be below the NAAQS,
demonstrating that the modeled emission limits will allow the Marshall
Area to comply with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the maintenance
period.
    EPA's April 2014 Guidance \12\ explains that EPA may also make
determinations of attainment based on the modeling from the attainment
demonstration for the applicable SIP for the affected area, eliminating
the need for separate actuals-based modeling to support a redesignation
request. A demonstration that the control strategy in the SIP has been
fully implemented (compliance records demonstrating that the control
measures have been implemented as required by the approved SIP) would
also be relevant for making this determination. An additional SIP
submittal from the air agency would not be required by the CAA, and if
the air agency has previously submitted a modeled attainment
demonstration, using allowable emissions, no further modeling would be
needed as long as the source characteristics (e.g., factors affecting
plume height) are still reasonably represented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See page 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeling submitted by West Virginia as part of its 2020
redesignation request is based on emission limits established in the
2019 consent order. The 2019 consent order requires Kentucky Power, the
operator of the Mitchell Power Plant, to comply with SO2
limits at the Mitchell Power Plant and associated compliance parameters
starting on January 1, 2020. The air quality modeling submitted with
the state's request used allowable emissions

(i.e., the SO2 limits effective January 1, 2020), and so
long as Mitchell is meeting its allowable limits, and the source
characteristics are consistent with the demonstration, such modeling is
likely conservative given that the actual emissions from Mitchell are
well below the emission used in the modeling. First quarter 2020
emissions data for Mitchell Power Plant shows compliance with the
SO2 emissions limit established under the 2019 consent
order.\13\ In addition, West Virginia's submittal includes a chart of
the last ten years of Mitchell's actual emissions, as compared to the
new limits in the consent order. In that chart, shown in figure 4 of
the submittal, the combined actual emissions from the stacks at
Mitchell are well below the 30-day average rolling limit of 3,149
pounds of SO2 per hour that took effect on January 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See graph entitled ``2020Q1 Historical AEP Mitchell
Combined Units 1 & 2 30-Day Rolling Average Emissions of
SO2'' available in the docket for this rulemaking action.
The first quarter SO2 emissions data for Mitchell Power
Plant is publicly available at EPA's Air Markets Program Data at
https://ampd.epa.gov//ampd/QueryToolie.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon the modeling submitted as part of the maintenance plan
for the redesignation request submitted on March 18, 2020, EPA is
proposing to find that West Virginia has shown that the Marshall Area
is attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

B. West Virginia Has Met All Applicable Requirements of Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA for the Marshall Area and EPA Has Fully Approved the
Applicable Implementation Plan Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

    In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, in order to
redesignate the Marshall Area to attainment, West Virginia must meet
all requirements applicable to the Marshall Area under CAA section 110
(general SIP requirements) and part D of title I of the CAA (SIP
requirements for nonattainment areas), and in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA, those requirements must be fully approved
into the West Virginia SIP under CAA section 110(k).
    EPA is proposing to determine that, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v), West Virginia has met all SIP requirements under
section 110 of the CAA and part D of title I of the CAA applicable for
purposes of this redesignation. In making these determinations, EPA
identified the requirements that are applicable to the Area for
purposes of redesignation and determined that these requirements are
fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA's rationale is
discussed in more detail in sections III.B.1 and III.B.1.a of the
preamble for this proposed rulemaking.
a. Section 110 General Requirements for SIPs
    Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), whenever new or revised NAAQS
are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan (i.e.,
``SIP'') for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of such
NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA contains the general
requirements for a SIP, also known as ``infrastructure'' requirements.
The infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) include the
requirements in subsections 110(a)(2)(A) through (M). However, not
every requirement of section 110(a)(2) is an applicable requirement for
the purposes of redesignating the Marshall Area to attainment for the
SO2 NAAQS. For example, section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that
SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from
significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state.
When such issues have been identified, EPA has required certain states
to establish programs to address transport of air pollutants. See
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) SIP Call and amendments to the
NOX SIP Call (64 FR 26298, May 14, 1999 and 65 FR 11222,
March 2, 2000), and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update
(81 FR 74504, October 26, 2016). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP
requirements are not linked with a particular area's SO2
designation. That is, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirement continues to
apply to a state regardless of the attainment designation (or
redesignation) of an area. EPA has concluded that the SIP requirements
linked to an area's SO2 designation for a particular NAAQS
are the relevant (applicable) measures when reviewing a redesignation
request for an area, and therefore the general requirements of section
110(a)(2), such as section 110(a)(2)(D), are not applicable
requirements for the purposes of a SO2 redesignation.
    Similarly, other section 110(a)(2) elements that are neither
connected with attainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's
SO2 designation are not applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation. An area redesignated from SO2
nonattainment to attainment will remain subject to these requirements
after redesignation to attainment. This approach is consistent with
EPA's existing policy on the applicability for the purpose of
redesignations of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well
as CAA section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10,
1996; 62 FR 24826, May 7, 2008); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final
rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on
this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR 37890, June
19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR
50399, October 19, 2001).
    Nonetheless, EPA approved elements of West Virginia's July 1, 2013,
and June 1, 2015, SO2 infrastructure SIP submittals on
November 17, 2014 (79 FR 62022) and August 11, 2016 (81 FR 53008),
respectively.\14\ As explained previously, the general requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2) are statewide requirements that are not linked to
the nonattainment status of the Marshall Area and are therefore not
``applicable requirements'' for the purpose of reviewing West
Virginia's redesignation request. Because West Virginia satisfies the
general SIP elements and requirements set forth in CAA section
110(a)(2) applicable to and necessary for SO2 redesignation,
EPA proposes to conclude that West Virginia has satisfied the criterion
of section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) related to section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ West Virginia's SO2 infrastructure SIP
submittals did not address the interstate transport element of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). As explained previously, the interstate
transport element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) is not an
applicable requirement for redesignation of the Marshall Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Part D Requirements
    In addition to the CAA section 110 requirements, section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that the state meet all the requirements
applicable to the nonattainment area ``under part D of this
subchapter'' in order for the nonattainment area to be redesignated.
Both section 107 and part D are within subchapter 1 of the CAA. Part D,
entitled ``Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas,'' consists of six
subparts, of which only subparts 1 and 5 are applicable to
SO2 nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (sections 171 through
179B) contains provisions that can apply to all nonattainment areas for
all criteria pollutants, while subpart 5 (sections 191 through 192)
contains additional provisions for SO2, NOX, or
lead nonattainment areas. The requirements applicable to this
redesignation are discussed below.

i. Subpart 1 Requirements
(1) Section 172 Requirements
    CAA section 172 requires states with nonattainment areas to submit
plans that provide for timely attainment of the NAAQS. More
specifically, CAA section 172(c) contains general requirements for
nonattainment plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements is
found in the General Preamble for Implementation of title I. 57 FR
13498, April 16, 1992.
    As noted in the General Preamble, certain attainment-related
planning requirements under section 172(c) no longer have meaning for
an area that is already attaining the NAAQS, and therefore are not
applicable for purposes of redesignation. For example, for an area that
is already attaining the NAAQS, there would be nothing for the state to
provide in order to show reasonable further progress to attainment in
that area. Similarly, the CAA section 172 requirements for the
attainment demonstration, implementation of reasonably available
control measures, including reasonably available control technology,
and contingency measures that are triggered if an area fails to meet
RFP or fails to attain also are not applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
    With respect to the CAA section 172(c)(3) requirement to submit an
actual current emissions inventory, WVDEP submitted a 2011 base year
emissions inventory for the Marshall Area on May 6, 2015. On July 31,
2015 (80 FR 45613), EPA approved the base year inventory into the West
Virginia SIP.
(2) Section 173
    Section 173 of the CAA includes requirements for permit programs
that are required in a nonattainment area for new sources as required
by section 172(c)(5), known as nonattainment new source review (NNSR).
However, EPA has a longstanding interpretation that because the NNSR
permit program is replaced by the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permit program upon an area's redesignation to
attainment, nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment do
not need a fully approved part D NNSR program in order to be
redesignated. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.''
Nevertheless, EPA notes that West Virginia has SIP-approved NNSR and
PSD programs, found at 45CSR13, 45CSR19, and 45CSR14. See 40 CFR
52.2520(c). West Virginia's PSD program will become applicable for
SO2 in the Marshall Area upon redesignation to attainment.
(3) Section 175A
    CAA section 175A requires that states seeking redesignation of an
area to attainment submit a ``maintenance plan'' containing certain
elements. West Virginia included a maintenance plan for the Marshall
Area with its March 18, 2020 redesignation request, which EPA is
proposing to approve in conjunction with the redesignation, and it is
discussed in detail in section III.D of the preamble of this proposed
rulemaking.
(4) Section 176 Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires Federal actions conform to the
air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and
projects that are developed, funded, or approved under title 23 of the
United States Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation
conformity) as well as to all other Federally-supported or funded
projects (general conformity). Section 176(c) of the CAA also requires
that states establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally-
supported or funded transportation plans, transportation improvement
programs (TIPs) and projects conform to the goals of the applicable
SIP. This is referred to as a transportation conformity SIP. In the
preamble to the January 1993 proposed transportation conformity rule,
EPA stated that, ``Based on available emissions information, EPA
believes highway and transit motor vehicles are not significant sources
of lead or sulfur dioxide. Therefore, transportation plans, TIPs, and
projects are presumed to conform to the applicable implementation plans
for these pollutants.'' (See 58 FR 3776, January 11, 1993.) In November
1993, EPA finalized its transportation conformity regulations. One
section of those regulations addressed the geographic applicability of
the transportation conformity regulations. The regulation stated at
that time that, ``The provisions of this subpart apply with respect to
emissions of the following criteria pollutants: Ozone, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, and particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10).'' \15\ Based on
this provision, transportation conformity does not apply in
nonattainment or maintenance areas for SO2. Therefore, a
transportation conformity SIP is not required for SO2
nonattainment and maintenance areas and is not necessary in order for
an SO2 nonattainment area to be redesignated to attainment,
and EPA's transportation conformity rules do not apply to
SO2 for the Marshall Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This provision has been revised to include particles with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5
micrometers (PM2.5). See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Subpart 5 Requirements
    The subpart 5 requirements, which consist of sections 191 and 192
of the CAA, are specific provisions applicable to SO2,
NO2 or lead nonattainment areas. Section 191 of the CAA
requires states with areas designated nonattainment for SO2,
NO2 or lead after November 15, 1990, to submit within 18
months of the designation an implementation plan meeting the
requirements of part D. The substance of the required plans is
established by section 172(c). Section 192 sets forth attainment dates
for nonattainment areas under section 191.
    For SO2, section 192(a) requires that attainment plans
provide for attainment of the primary Standard as expeditiously as
possible, but no later than five years from the date of the
nonattainment designation. EPA designated the Marshall Area as
nonattainment on August 5, 2013, with an attainment date of October 4,
2018. However, because EPA is reviewing a redesignation request under
section 107(d)(3)(E), rather than a determination of attainment under
section 179(c), the determination of whether the Area attained by the
attainment date set forth in section 192 is not applicable to this
action proposing approval of West Virginia's redesignation request.
    Based on the above, EPA is proposing to find that West Virginia has
satisfied the applicable requirements for the redesignation of the
Marshall Area under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA.

C. The Air Quality Improvements in the Marshall Area Are Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions

    For an area to be redesignated, the state must be able to
reasonably attribute the improvement in air quality to emission
reductions which are permanent and enforceable.\16\ The Marshall Area
was designated nonattainment on August 5, 2013 based on monitored data
from 2009-2011. Since the Area was designated, several

large SO2 emitting facilities in the Marshall Area have
permanently shut down, and one facility has switched to a cleaner fuel.
On June 1, 2015 and October 9, 2015, the AEP's Kammer Power Plant
(Kammer) and the Rain CII Carbon facility (Rain CII), respectively,
closed permanently. On November 12, 2015 and June 10, 2016, the Eagle
Natrium, LLC plant implemented a fuel switch from burning coal to
burning natural gas on boiler #6 and boiler #5, respectively.\17\ The
Mitchell Power Plant is therefore the remaining primary source of
SO2 emissions in the Marshall Area. Mitchell has
significantly reduced its SO2 emissions since the Area was
designated, and these emission reductions are being made permanent and
enforceable by the limits contained in West Virginia consent order CO-
SIP-C-2019-13. West Virginia requested that the 2019 consent order be
incorporated into the West Virginia SIP. If this action is finalized,
the emission limits and associated parameters in the 2019 consent order
will become permanent and Federally-enforceable. The 2019 consent order
requires that combined SO2 emissions from Mitchell Units 1
and 2 be limited to a total maximum of 3,149 lbs/hr on a 30-operating
day rolling average basis, and includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting provisions to show compliance with the limits. Compliance
with the 2019 consent order was required starting on January 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See April 2014 Guidance, page 64.
    \17\ Appendix D of the March 18, 2020 West Virginia
redesignation request includes documentation showing the permanent
closure of the Kammer and Rain CII facilities, and the fuel switch
at the Eagle Natrium facility, included in the docket for this
rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of the Marshall Area's nonattainment designation, the
monitored SO2 design value at the Moundsville monitor for
2009-2011 was 80 ppb. These monitored values occurred before the
permanent closure of the two facilities and the switch to burning
natural gas at another facility mentioned in the preceding paragraph as
well as the emission reductions at Mitchell. More recent monitoring
data indicate that ambient SO2 levels have improved
significantly at the monitor. The 2019 data shows the 99th percentile
value at 9 ppb. The monitored design value for the Marshall Area for
2017-2019 is 8 ppb, which is well below the SO2 NAAQS of 75
ppb. This air quality improvement is attributable to the substantial
SO2 emission reductions noted above, and therefore EPA
proposes to find that the improvement in air quality in the Marshall
Area can be attributed to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions, and that CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) has been satisfied
by West Virginia.

D. West Virginia Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan for the
Marshall Area

    CAA section 175A sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the nonattainment area is
redesignated to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the
state must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that
attainment will continue to be maintained for the ten years following
the initial ten-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must also contain contingency measures
as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future
violations. Specifically, the maintenance plan should address five
requirements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance
demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air quality monitoring;
(4) the verification of continued attainment; and (5) a contingency
plan.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, EPA, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' September 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Marshall Area,
West Virginia submitted, as a revision to its SIP, a plan to provide
for maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS through 2030 in the Area,
which is 10 years after the expected effective date of the
redesignation to attainment. West Virginia has committed to review the
maintenance plan for the Area eight years after redesignation. The
maintenance plan includes the five components noted previously in this
section.
    In a maintenance plan, states are required to submit an inventory
used for the year of attainment, which is called the attainment year
inventory. This inventory is used as the basis for future, projected
emission inventories that are used to show the area will remain in
attainment. West Virginia submitted a 2016 SO2 emissions
inventory as the attainment year inventory. The year 2016 was selected
because it is one of the three years of monitoring data from 2016
through 2018 for which the design value showed compliance with the
SO2 NAAQS.
    For the 2016 attainment year inventory for point sources, West
Virginia used actual emissions reported by each facility. Eagle Natrium
switched its fuel source from coal to natural gas between 2015 and
2016, resulting in lower SO2 emissions in 2016. The Kammer
Power Plant and Rain CII Carbon plant both closed in 2015 and therefore
there were no emissions from these plants in 2016. The point source
emissions for the Marshall Area were verified against EPA's emissions
inventory system (EIS) and EPA found them to be acceptable.
    Nonroad and onroad emissions for 2016 were calculated by West
Virginia using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2014a
model. NONROAD is a component of the MOVES model that is run within the
model. Monthly results were summed to get the yearly emissions.
    Emissions for the nonpoint or area source category for 2016 were
not available at the time of the attainment plan submittal, and so
emissions for these sources were calculated using projections from the
Mid Atlantic Regional Air Management Association's (MARAMA) 2017 Beta
Modeling Inventory \19\ found in the emissions modeling framework
(EMF). The EMF is a tool that supports the management and quality
assurance of emissions inventories and emissions modeling-related data,
and the running of the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Model
(SMOKE) to develop air quality model inputs. West Virginia stated that
2017 is a reasonable substitution since the MARAMA model used a ``no-
growth'' assumption for fuel usage, population, and employment between
2016 and 2017. The 2017 projected nonpoint emissions for Marshall
County are 49.66 tpy, while the nonpoint emissions in the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) 2014 version2 for Marshall County is 30 tpy,
therefore the 2017 projected nonpoint emissions is conservative
compared to the 2014 version2 NEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ MARAMA emissions inventories: https://www.marama.org/technical-center/emissions-inventory/2011-inventory-and-projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Oil and gas emissions for 2016 were calculated using EPA's Oil and
Gas Tool version 2.2 with local data from West Virginia's Geological
and Economic Survey. These emissions represent the sum of
SO2 generated by oil and gas production and exploration
activities.
    Projection inventories are used to show that the area will remain
in attainment. West Virginia, with the assistance of MARAMA, developed
2023 and 2030 emission projections for the interim and maintenance plan
end year, respectively. The Mitchell Power Plant is the primary point
source still in

operation within the nonattainment area. The projection inventory for
the Mitchell Power Plant is based on actual emission trends over the
last five years. Onroad and nonroad emissions were calculated using the
same methodologies as the 2016 attainment year inventory. For the
nonpoint emission projections, West Virginia submitted emissions from
MARAMA's Emissions Inventory Development for 2011 and 2017 Beta2
Modeling Inventory, which projected emissions for 2023.\20\ The
emissions for 2030 were ``grown'' using the emission factors used to
calculate the 2023 emissions. Oil and gas emissions for 2023 and 2030
were developed using Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2017 future year
production projections and growth factors and following the
methodologies documented in EPA's ``TSD for Additional Updates to
Emissions Inventories for the Version 6.3, 2011 Emissions Modeling
Platform for Year 2023.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association emissions
inventories: https://www.marama.org/technical-center/emissions-inventory/2011-inventory-and-projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA reviewed all the files and the emission results provided by
West Virginia for both the attainment year inventory and the projected
inventories and found them to be acceptable. The detailed inventory
information for the Marshall Area is contained in appendix B of the
March 18, 2020 SIP submittal. Appendix B, as well as EPA's Emissions
Inventory TSD, is included in the docket for this rulemaking action.
The inventories are shown in Table 3.

           Table 3--Emissions Inventories for the Marshall Nonattainment Area, in Tons per Year (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            2011 actuals    2016 actuals \a\   2023 projected    2030 projected
                 Sector                        (base)         (attainment)        (interim)       (maintenance)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU.....................................            21,231             3,605             2,900             2,900
Non-EGU.................................            12,792             2,556                12                12
Oil & Gas...............................            6.1001             10.55             12.76             13.46
Area (non-point)........................             51.19             49.66             45.58             45.05
Non-Road................................              0.02              0.01              0.01              0.01
On-Road.................................              2.10              2.03              0.81              0.76
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................         34,082.41          6,223.25          2,971.16          2,971.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ With the exception of non-point sources as explained previously.

    A state may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by
either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors
will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling
to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not
cause a violation of the NAAQS.\21\ West Virginia's projected actual
emissions for the interim year of 2023 and for the maintenance year of
2030 are both below the total attainment year inventory, which is
acceptable for showing maintenance in the Marshall Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See April 2014 Guidance, page 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    West Virginia has committed to continue monitoring SO2
levels at the Moundsville monitor, and will consult with EPA prior to
making changes to the existing monitoring network, should changes be
needed in the future. West Virginia has committed to enter all data
into AQS on a timely basis in accordance with Federal guidelines, and
to continue to quality assure the monitoring data to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 58 and all other Federal requirements.
    The closures of Kammer and Rain CII, and the fuel switch to natural
gas at Eagle Natrium LLC, has resulted in significant reductions of
SO2 emissions in the Marshall Area. The only significant
SO2 emitting facility remaining in the Marshall Area is the
Mitchell Power Plant.
    The new, permanent and enforceable SO2 emission limits
for the Mitchell Power Plant described above, which were shown to be
comparably stringent to the CEV established by the March 18, 2020
modeling, ensure that the Marshall Area will continue attain the NAAQS.
    For the Marshall Area and SO2 in general, ``attainment
revolves around compliance of a single source or a small set of sources
with emission limits shown to provide for attainment,'' \22\
specifically the Mitchell Power Plant. West Virginia has committed to
track the SO2 emissions and compliance status of the
Mitchell Power Plant in order to verify that the plant complies with
the emission limit in the 2019 consent order, so that modeling using
the corresponding 1-hour CEV may be considered to demonstrate that the
Area is maintaining the Standard. To demonstrate compliance with the
SO2 emission limitations of the 2019 consent order, Kentucky
Power is required to use the continuous emissions monitoring system
(CEMS) installed, certified, operated, and maintained in accordance
with 40 CFR part 75, and is required to calculate and record a 30-
operating day rolling average SO2 emission rate, updated
after each new boiler operating day. Each 30-operating day rolling
average emission rate is the average of all of the valid hourly
SO2 emission rates in the 30-operating day period. The 2019
consent order also requires the reporting of any exceedance of the 30-
operating day rolling average SO2 emission limit to WVDEP
within five business days after the exceedance occurs, and must include
information related to any deviations from the 30-operating day rolling
average limit, if any, the duration of the deviation, and the cause of
the deviation. Kentucky Power must also submit semiannual compliance
reports to WVDEP on emissions from Mitchell Units 1 and 2. All major
sources in West Virginia are required to submit annual emissions data,
which the State uses to update its emission inventories as required by
the CAA, and West Virginia has committed to provide updates to future
inventories in accordance with EPA's AERR rule every three years. West
Virginia has also committed to assure that existing control measures
will remain in effect, that any changes to its rules or emissions
applicable to SO2 as required for maintenance of the 2010
SO2 Standard will be submitted to EPA for approval as a SIP
revision, and that it intends to continue enforcing all rules that
relate to the emission of SO2 precursors in the Marshall
Area.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See April 2014 Guidance, page 69.
    \23\ See March 18, 2020 West Virginia redesignation request
submittal, page 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The April 2014 Guidance, pages 65-69, states that the requirement
to submit contingency measures in accordance with section 175A(d) can
be adequately addressed for SO2 by having a

comprehensive enforcement program which can quickly identify and
address sources that might be causing exceedances of the NAAQS. To do
so, West Virginia has committed to adopt and expeditiously implement
necessary corrective actions as follows. A warning level response shall
be triggered whenever the 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily
SO2 maximum concentration of 75.5 ppb occurs in a single
calendar year within the maintenance area (i.e., the Marshall Area). A
warning level response will consist of a study to determine whether
SO2 values indicate a trend toward higher ambient
SO2 values or whether SO2 source emissions appear
to be increasing.
    The study will evaluate whether the trend, if any, is likely to
continue and, if so, the control measures necessary to reverse the
trend, taking into consideration ease and timing for implementation as
well as economic and social considerations. Implementation of necessary
controls in response to a warning level response trigger will take
place as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 12
months from the conclusion of the most recent calendar year. If the 2-
year average of the 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily SO2
maximum concentrations is 75 ppb or greater, or a violation of the
SO2 NAAQS occurs within the maintenance area, an ``action
level response'' will be triggered. If the exceedance is found to not
be caused by an exceptional event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a
permit condition or rule requirement, the West Virginia Division of Air
Quality (DAQ), in conjunction with the metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) or regional council of governments, will determine
additional control measures needed to assure continued attainment of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Any selected measures will be those that
can be implemented within 18 months from the close of the calendar year
that prompted the action level response.\24\ If additional control
measures are required, West Virginia commits to adopt the measures in
accordance with the State's administrative process for rulemaking and
submit an analysis to EPA to demonstrate the proposed measures are
adequate to return the area to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See March 18, 2020 West Virginia redesignation request
submittal, page 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on EPA's findings, the Agency proposes to find that West
Virginia's submitted maintenance plan adequately addresses the five
basic components necessary to maintain the SO2 NAAQS in the
Marshall Area. EPA is proposing to find that West Virginia's
maintenance plan for the Marshall Area is approvable per the CAA,
including CAA section 175A and EPA guidance, and is proposing to
approve the maintenance plan as a revision to the West Virginia SIP.

IV. The Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions

    The effect of this proposal, if finalized, would change the
classification of the Marshall Area from nonattainment to attainment of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, incorporate the emissions limits
contained in the 2019 consent order for Mitchell into the West Virginia
SIP, and incorporate the maintenance plan into the West Virginia SIP.
In addition, if finalized before October 30, 2020, the redesignation
would terminate EPA's obligation to act by that date on the 2017 SIP
submitted for the Marshall Area, under the terms of the court order
entered in Center for Biological Diversity v. Wheeler.

V. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to find that the Marshall Area has attained the
2010 SO2 NAAQS, as demonstrated by a modeling analysis
reflecting a new SO2 emission limit for the Mitchell Power
Plant. EPA is also proposing that West Virginia has met the planning
requirements necessary for EPA to redesignate the Marshall Area from
nonattainment to attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including
the requirements for permanent and enforceable measures, submission of
an approvable maintenance plan that will assure attainment for ten
years after redesignation, and that all other CAA requirements under
section 110 and part D, as discussed in this rulemaking, have been met.
EPA is also proposing to approve the Marshall Area redesignation
request, maintenance plan, SO2 emission limits and
associated compliance parameters for Mitchell in the 2019 consent
order, and the modeling demonstration showing that the limits provide
for maintenance. EPA is proposing these actions under the CAA.

VI. 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 West Virginia consent order CO-SIP-C-2019-13. EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
https://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).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does
not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in
the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that
have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 these reasons, 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
     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 rulemaking redesignating the Marshall
Area, approving the Marshall Area maintenance plan, and approving other
related SIP revisions, 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

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.

40 CFR Part 81

    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.

    Dated: June 18, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-13585 Filed 6-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50098-50100]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF12-6-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Line MB Loop
Extension Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    On August 1, 2012, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) filed
its intent to modify the Line MB Loop Extension Project (project) in
Baltimore and Harford Counties, Maryland, by incorporating the
Alternative Route 16.55A into it's proposed route and dropping the BGE
Route Alternative from further consideration. On April 16, 2012, a
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment (original NOI)
was issued for the project as originally planned. This Supplemental
Notice of Intent (supplemental NOI) addresses these changes. The
original NOI is attached to this document, so certain information
included in it will not be repeated in the supplemental NOI including
the original project description, information about becoming an
intervenor, and how to find additional information about the project.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the project involving construction
and operation of the facilities planned by Columbia, including the
supplemental facilities. This EA will be used by the Commission in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    If you are receiving this supplemental NOI, you may be affected by
Alternate Route 16.55A. This notice announces the opening of the
scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public
and interested agencies on these supplemental facilities for the
project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping
period will close on September 10, 2012.
    This supplemental NOI is being sent to the affected landowners
along the Alternative Route 16.55A facilities proposed by Columbia for
the project on August 1, 2012. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this
modification to the planned project and encourage them to comment on
their areas of concern. We invite you to file comments; but, we request
that you file comments only pertinent to Alternative Route 16.55A.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities.
The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.
However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval
conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could
initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Project

    Columbia plans to construct about 21.4 miles of 26-inch-diameter
pipeline in Baltimore and Harford Counties, Maryland. The new pipeline
would primarily in installed within or adjacent to it's existing
rights-of-way.
    The planned supplemental facilities would include the Alternative
Route 16.55A which would be about 4.1 miles of 26-inch-diameter
pipeline departing from the existing Line MA near milepost (MP) 16.55
and ending at MP 21. It would begin where the existing Line MA corridor
crosses Dunstan Lane and would parallel Stansbury Mill Road eastward to
Allison Road. From this point it would parallel Allison Road

northward, and then cross this road extending to the northeast to cross
Little Gunpowder Falls. It would continue north northeastward through
agricultural land and then turn east southeastward parallel to Hess
Road behind the residences along Hess Road. It would then cross
Fallston Road and Kings Arms Drive, and turn southeastward to tie back
to the Line MA corridor. Because Columbia intends to incorporate this
route alternative into the Line MB Loop Extension Project, it longer
considers the BGE Route Alternative as part of the proposed route.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species; and
     Public safety.
    We will also continue to evaluate possible alternatives to the
planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an
application is filed with the FERC. As part of our pre-filing review,
we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss
their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
The EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the
comments received during the scoping process, may be published and
distributed to the public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA
is published for review. We will consider all comments on the EA before
we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments
are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section below.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with applicable State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit
their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian
tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic
properties.\3\ We will define the project-specific Area of Potential
Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project is further
developed. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Historic
properties are defined in those regulations as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that they will be received in Washington, DC, on or before September
10, 2012.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (PF10-15-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
eFiling staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for
interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project.
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
featured on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    You have been added to the current environmental mailing list which
includes federal, state, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local newspapers.
This list also includes all the affected landowners (as defined in the
Commission's regulations) for the project as originally planned who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of
above ground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the
project. We will update the environmental mailing

list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information
related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the planned project.
    If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

    Dated: August 9, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20310 Filed 8-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P