[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3691-3711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1510]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0091, EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0584; FRL-9622-3]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval 
of six revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Department of 
Environmental Quality (VADEQ), that address regional haze for the first 
implementation period. These revisions address the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require states to 
prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I areas (national parks and wilderness 
areas) caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources 
located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional 
haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress 
toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in 
Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of these SIP 
revisions to implement the regional haze requirements for Virginia on 
the basis that the revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Virginia SIP. 
Also in this action, EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of these 
same SIP revisions because of the deficiencies in the Commonwealth's 
regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to EPA of the

[[Page 3692]]

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). EPA is also proposing to approve this 
revision as meeting the infrastructure requirements relating to 
visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0091 and EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0584 by one of the following 
methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Email: [email protected].
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0091 and EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0584, Cristina 
Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 
3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0091 and EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0584. EPA's policy is that all comments 
received will be included in the public docket without change, and may 
be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal 
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden, (215) 814-2096, or by 
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. The Commonwealth of Virginia 
submitted revisions to its SIP for Regional Haze on July 17, 2008, 
March 6, 2009, January 14, 2010, October 4, 2010, November 19, 2010, 
and May 6, 2011.

Table of Contents

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

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of Virginia's July 17, 2008, 
March 6, 2009, January 14, 2010, October 4, 2010, November 19, 2010, 
and May 6, 2011 SIP revisions addressing regional haze under CAA 
sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3) because the revisions as a whole 
strengthen the Virginia SIP. However, the Virginia SIP relies on CAIR, 
an EPA rule, to satisfy key elements of the regional haze requirements. 
Due to the remand of CAIR, see North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC 
Cir. 2008), the revisions do not meet all of the applicable 
requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations as set forth in sections 
169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308. As a result, EPA is 
concurrently proposing a limited disapproval of Virginia's SIP 
revisions.

[[Page 3693]]

The revisions nevertheless represent an improvement over the current 
SIP, and make considerable progress in fulfilling the applicable CAA 
regional haze program requirements.
    Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-standing 
guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP 
submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from 
granting a full approval of the SIP revision. See Processing of State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Air Division 
Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni 
Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. The deficiencies that EPA has identified as preventing a 
full approval of this SIP revision relate to the status and impact of 
CAIR on certain interrelated and required elements of the regional haze 
program. At the time the Virginia regional haze SIP was being 
developed, the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR was fully consistent 
with EPA's regulations. 70 FR 39104, 39142 (July 6, 2005). CAIR, as 
originally promulgated, requires significant reductions in emissions of 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) to 
limit the interstate transport of these pollutants, and the reliance on 
CAIR by affected states as an alternative to requiring BART for 
electric generating units (EGUs) had specifically been upheld in 
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (DC Cir. 2006). In 
2008, however, the DC Circuit remanded CAIR back to EPA. North Carolina 
v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176. The Court found CAIR to be inconsistent with the 
requirements of the CAA, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 
2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur because 
it found that ``allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced 
by a rule consistent with [the court's] opinion would at least 
temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR,'' North 
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. In response to the court's decision, 
EPA has issued a new rule to address interstate transport of 
NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States (i.e., 
the Transport Rule, also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). 
76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011. In the Transport Rule, EPA finalized 
regulatory changes to sunset CAIR and the CAIR FIPs for control periods 
in 2012 and beyond. 76 FR 48322.
    In the Transport Rule, EPA noted that it had not at that time 
conducted a technical analysis to determine whether compliance with the 
Transport Rule would satisfy the requirements of the RHR addressing 
alternatives to BART. EPA has since conducted such an analysis and has 
proposed that compliance with the Transport Rule will provide for 
greater reasonable progress toward improving visibility than source-
specific BART controls for EGUs located in those states covered by the 
Transport Rule.\1\ 76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011. On that same day, 
the DC Circuit issued an order addressing the status of the Transport 
Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking 
a stay of the Transport Rule pending judicial review. In that order, 
the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule pending the court's resolution 
of the petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. 
v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated 
that EPA is expected to continue to administer the CAIR in the interim 
until the court rules on the petitions for review of the Transport 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Regional Haze: Revision to Provisions Governing Alternatives 
to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 
Determinations, Limited SIP Approvals, and Federal Implementation 
Plans. This notice erroneously states in Footnote 5 that EPA has 
previously proposed a limited disapproval of Virginia's SIP. In 
fact, today's notice proposes a limited disapproval of Virginia's 
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., 
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 
and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some 
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). 
Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine 
particulate matter that impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing 
light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible 
distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious 
health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental 
effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \2\ in many Class I areas 
\3\ (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. 
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average 
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 
35715, July 1, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
    \3\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in 
consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 
156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. See 
44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979. The extent of a mandatory Class I 
area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park 
expansions. See 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may 
designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have 
visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility 
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 
``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal 
area is the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' See 42 
U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term ``Class I area'' is used in this 
action, it means a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, 
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment.'' 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first 
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on 
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between 
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to

[[Page 3694]]

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR 
revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the 
regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and 
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I 
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 
CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze 
requirements are summarized in section III of this notice. The 
requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the 
District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.\4\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) 
requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

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

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility

    Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require that 
within three years of promulgation of a NAAQS, a state must ensure that 
its SIP, among other requirements, ``contains adequate provisions 
prohibiting any source or other types of emission activity within the 
State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will interfere 
with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation 
plan for any other State to protect visibility.'' Similarly, section 
110(a)(2)(J) requires that such SIP ``meet the applicable requirements 
of part C of (Subchapter I) (relating to visibility protection).''
    EPA's 2006 Guidance, entitled ``Guidance for State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' recognized the possibility 
that a state could potentially meet the visibility portions of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission of a Regional Haze SIP, as 
required by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. EPA's 2009 guidance, 
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) 
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' recommended that a state could 
meet such visibility requirements through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA's 
rationale supporting this recommendation was that the development of 
the regional haze SIPs was intended to occur in a collaborative 
environment among the states, and that through this process states 
would coordinate on emissions controls to protect visibility on an 
interstate basis. The common understanding was that, as a result of 
this collaborative environment, each state would take action to achieve 
the emissions reductions relied upon by other states in their 
reasonable progress demonstrations under the RHR. This interpretation 
is consistent with the requirement in the RHR that a state 
participating in a regional planning process must include ``all 
measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction 
obligations agreed upon through that process.'' See 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    The regional haze program, as reflected in the RHR, recognizes the 
importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for 
visibility and encourages states to work together to develop plans to 
address haze. The regulations explicitly require each state to address 
its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable 
progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. States working together 
through a regional planning process, are required to address an agreed 
upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class 
I areas of their neighbors. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these 
requirements, appropriate regional haze SIPs will contain measures that 
will achieve these emissions reductions and will meet the applicable 
visibility related requirements of section 110(a)(2). As a result of 
the regional planning efforts in VISTAS, all states in the VISTAS 
region provided an analysis of the causes of haze, and the levels of 
contribution from all sources within each state to the visibility 
degradation of each Class I area. The VISTAS states consulted in the 
development of the area of influence (AOI), using the products of this 
technical consultation process to co-develop the Commonwealth's 
reasonable progress goals for their Class I areas. The modeling done by 
VISTAS relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the relevant 
planning period and embedded in these assumptions were anticipated 
emissions reductions in each of the states in VISTAS, including 
reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part of the 
state's long term strategy for addressing regional haze.
    The Commonwealth submitted Virginia's Regional Haze SIP revisions 
on July 17, 2008 for Georgia Pacific Corporation BART determination and 
permit; March 6, 2009 for MeadWestvaco Corporation BART determination 
and permit; January 14, 2010 for O-N Minerals Facility BART 
determination and permit; October 4, 2010 for the comprehensive 
regional haze SIP; November 19, 2010 for the revision to the O-N 
Minerals Facility BART determination and permit; and May 6, 2011 for 
the MeadWestvaco Corporation Reasonable Progress permit, to address the 
requirements of the RHR. On December 10, 2007, December 13, 2007, June 
8, 2010, and June 9, 2010, Virginia submitted its 1997 Ozone

[[Page 3695]]

NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittals. On July 10, 2008, September 2, 
2008, June 8, 2010, June 9, 2010, and August 30, 2010, Virginia 
submitted its 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 
submittals. On August 30, 2010 and April 1, 2011, Virginia submitted 
its 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittals. 
Infrastructure SIP submittals are required to be submitted by every 
state for each NAAQS promulgated by EPA to fulfill the requirements in 
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Visibility protection is a requirement of 
these infrastructure SIPs in sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 
110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA and are addressed in the abovementioned 
submittals by Virginia. EPA has reviewed Virginia's Regional Haze SIP 
and as explained in section VII of this action, proposes to find that 
Virginia's Regional Haze submittal meets the portions of the 
requirements of the CAA sections 110(a)(2) relating to visibility 
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

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

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

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit 
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform 
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire 
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy 
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using 
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then 
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. 
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in 
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview 
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the 
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
deciview.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, 
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I 
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR 
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead 
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable 
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility 
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in 
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year 
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 
least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each

[[Page 3696]]

applicable Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how 
they take these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance 
for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, 
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from 
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') 
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of 
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards 
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of 
progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state 
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult 
with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states 
with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at 
the Class I state's areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \6\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR 
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for 
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil 
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity 
in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set 
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, 
to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other 
types of sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and 
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual source's impacts. Any 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional 
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements 
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements 
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART 
controls on the source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration 
for CAIR. 70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005. EPA's regulations provide that 
states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 CFR 
part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain subject to 
the CAIR FIP in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected BART-eligible 
EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of 
SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because 
CAIR did not address direct emissions of PM, states were still required 
to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART 
for that pollutant.
    On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading 
programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable 
progress towards the national goal than would BART in the states in 
which the Transport Rule applies. 76 FR 82219. EPA also proposed to 
revise the RHR to allow states to meet the requirements of an 
alternative program in lieu of BART by participation in the trading 
programs under the Transport Rule. EPA has not taken final action on 
that rule.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the 
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable 
RPGs.

[[Page 3697]]

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

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

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

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for 
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through 
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of 
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with 
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. 
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring 
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether 
RPGs will be met. The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.

The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial implementation 
period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive reassessment 
and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years 
thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core requirements of 
section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The requirement to 
evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first regional haze SIP. 
Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply with the BART 
provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP revisions 
will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will 
continue to be met.

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

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

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

A. Overview of EPA's CAIR

    CAIR, as originally promulgated, required 28 states and the 
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and 
NOX that significantly contributed to, or interfered with 
maintenance of, the 1997 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 
for fine particulates

[[Page 3698]]

and/or the 1997 NAAQS for 8-hour ozone in any downwind state. 70 FR 
25162, May 12, 2005. CAIR established emissions budgets for 
SO2 and NOX for states found to contribute 
significantly to nonattainment in downwind states and required these 
states to submit SIP revisions that implemented these budgets. States 
had the flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to 
achieve the budgets, including participation in EPA-administered cap-
and-trade programs addressing SO2, NOX-annual, 
and NOX-ozone season emissions. In 2006, EPA promulgated 
FIPs for all states covered by CAIR to ensure the reductions would be 
achieved in a timely manner.

B. Remand of the CAIR and Promulgation of the Transport Rule

    On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision to vacate 
and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. 
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2008). However, in 
response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the court issued an order 
remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. 
The court thereby left the EPA CAIR rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in 
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values 
covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the 
court's opinion. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. EPA replaced 
CAIR with the Transport Rule in August 2011. 76 FR 48208, August 8, 
2011. As described in section I of this notice, the Transport Rule has 
been stayed pending judicial review and, consistent with the order of 
the D.C. Circuit, EPA is again administering CAIR until the D.C. 
Circuit rules on the challenges to the Transport Rule.

C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially Affected by the CAIR Remand 
and Promulgation of the Transport Rule

    The following is a summary of the elements of the regional haze 
SIPs that are potentially affected by the remand of CAIR. As described 
above, EPA determined in 2005 that states opting to participate in the 
CAIR cap-and-trade program need not require BART for SO2 and 
NOX at BART-eligible EGUs. 70 FR 39142-39143. Many states 
relied on CAIR as an alternative to BART for SO2 and 
NOX for subject EGUs, as allowed under the BART provisions 
at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Additionally, several states established RPGs 
that reflect the improvement in visibility expected to result from 
controls planned for or already installed on sources within the state 
to meet the CAIR provisions for this implementation period for 
specified pollutants. Many states relied upon their own CAIR SIPs or 
the CAIR FIPs for their states to provide the legal requirements that 
lead to these planned controls, and did not include enforceable 
measures in the LTS in the regional haze SIP submission to ensure these 
reductions. States also submitted demonstrations showing that no 
additional controls on EGUs beyond CAIR would be reasonable for this 
implementation period. In the case of Virginia, the SIP revisions 
related to regional haze rely on CAIR as an alternative to BART for 
SO2 and NOX for subject EGUs, and the RPGs 
reflect the improvement in visibility expected (at the time) to result 
from CAIR. EPA has determined in other rulemakings that because of the 
deficiencies identified in CAIR by the court and the sunsetting of CAIR 
by the Transport Rule, it would be inappropriate to fully approve 
states' LTSs that rely upon the emissions reductions predicted to 
result from CAIR to meet the BART requirement for EGUs or to meet the 
RPGs in the states' regional haze SIPs. Although CAIR is currently 
being administered by EPA pursuant to an order by D.C. Circuit in EME 
Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA, it will not remain in effect 
indefinitely. For this reason, EPA cannot fully approve regional haze 
SIP revisions that rely on CAIR for emission reduction measures. 
However, as discussed in section IV.D of this notice, EPA still 
believes it is appropriate to propose a limited approval of Virginia's 
regional haze SIP revisions (listed above in section II.D) as these 
revisions provide an improvement over the current SIP, and make 
progress in fulfilling the applicable CAA regional haze program 
requirements. EPA therefore proposes to grant limited approval and 
limited disapproval of the six Virginia regional haze SIP revisions.\7\ 
The next section discusses how EPA proposes to address these 
deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA mistakenly stated in a recent proposed rule (76 FR 
82219) that EPA had already proposed limited disapproval the 
Virginia regional haze SIP based on its reliance on CAIR. See 76 FR 
at 82221, December 30, 2011. EPA is proposing limited disapproval in 
today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Transport Rule, EPA did not substantively address the 
question of whether the emissions reductions from the Transport Rule 
will provide for greater reasonable progress than BART. EPA explained 
in that rulemaking that EPA had not yet conducted any technical 
analysis to determine whether the Transport Rule would provide 
sufficient emissions reductions and concomitant improvements in 
visibility to be considered to provide for greater reasonable progress 
than BART. The EPA has now completed such an analysis and has proposed 
the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for EGUs located in the 
Transport Rule states (which include Virginia). 76 FR 82219.

D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed Limited Approval and Limited 
Disapproval

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of Virginia's regional haze SIP 
revisions. Limited approval results in approval of the entire regional 
haze submission and all its elements. EPA is taking this approach 
because an affected state's SIP will be stronger and more protective of 
the environment with the implementation of measures taken by the state 
and with Federal approval and enforceability than it would without 
those measures being included in the state's SIP.
    EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of the Virginia 
regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR. As explained in the 1992 
Calcagni Memorandum, ``[t]hrough a limited approval, EPA [will] 
concurrently, or within a reasonable period of time thereafter, 
disapprove the rule * * * for not meeting all of the applicable 
requirements of the Act. * * * [T]he limited disapproval is a 
rulemaking action, and it is subject to notice and comment.'' Final 
limited disapproval of a SIP submittal does not affect the Federal 
enforceability of the measures in the subject SIP revision nor prevent 
state implementation of these measures. The legal effects of a final 
limited disapproval are to provide EPA the authority to issue a FIP at 
any time, and to obligate EPA to take such action no more than two 
years after the effective date of the final limited disapproval action. 
On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed a partial regional haze Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) that would provide that the BART requirements 
for SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs in Virginia 
is satisfied by the already-promulgated Transport Rule FIP applicable 
to EGU sources in Virginia, as would be allowed by a proposed revision 
to the Regional Haze Rule that was included in the same notice. 76 FR 
82219. Comments on the proposed regional haze FIP are requested and may 
be submitted to the docket for this action or to the docket for the 
proposed regional haze rule revisions (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0729). The EPA encourages Virginia, as it does all states in a similar 
situation, to submit a revision to its regional haze SIP incorporating 
the requirements of the Transport Rule as the alternative to

[[Page 3699]]

BART for SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs, at 
which time we will withdraw the regional haze FIP.

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

    On July 17, 2008, March 6, 2009, January 14, 2010, October 4, 2010, 
November 19, 2010, and May 6, 2011, VADEQ submitted revisions to the 
Virginia SIP to address regional haze in the Commonwealth's Class I 
area as required by EPA's RHR.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    Virginia has two Class I areas within its borders: Shenandoah 
National Park and James River Face Wilderness Area. Virginia is 
responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that addresses these 
Class I areas and for consulting with other states that impact these 
areas.
    The October 4, 2010, Virginia regional haze SIP establishes RPGs 
for visibility improvement at Shenandoah National Park and James River 
Face Wilderness Area and a LTS to achieve those RPGs within the first 
regional haze implementation period ending in 2018. In developing the 
LTS for the areas, Virginia considered both emission sources inside and 
outside of Virginia that may cause or contribute to visibility 
impairment in Virginia's Class I areas. The Commonwealth also 
identified and considered emission sources within Virginia that may 
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas in 
neighboring states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO 
worked with the Commonwealth in developing the technical analyses used 
to make these determinations, including state-by-state contributions to 
visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which included the 
Class I areas in Virginia and those areas affected by emissions from 
Virginia.

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

    As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, Virginia calculated baseline/current and natural 
visibility conditions for its Class I area, as summarized below.
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light 
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine 
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. 
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for 
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations 
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE 
monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA 
allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to 2003 EPA 
guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural 
visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is 
to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural 
concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to 
use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the 
IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\8\ The purpose of this 
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate 
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light 
extinction. Virginia opted to use this refined approach, referred to as 
the ``new IMPROVE equation,'' for its Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort 
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from 
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) 
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to 
aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the 
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of 
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources 
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The 
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring 
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Natural visibility conditions using the new IMPROVE equation were 
calculated separately for each Class I area by VISTAS. Natural 
background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light extinction 
using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle 
components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity.
    The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review 
of the science \9\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size 
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and 
organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon 
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New 
terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea 
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific 
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to 
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of 
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement 
factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium 
sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 
remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 
soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new 
IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is 
summarized in Virginia's Appendix B and in numerous published 
papers. See for example: Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of 
the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction 
Coefficients--Final Report. March 2006. Prepared for Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado 
State University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the 
Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, Natural Haze Levels 
II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species 
Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the Natural Haze Levels II 
Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 
2006 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    VADEQ estimated baseline visibility conditions at the Virginia 
Class I areas using available monitoring data from IMPROVE monitoring 
sites in Shenandoah National Park and James River Face Wilderness Area. 
As explained in section III.B, baseline visibility conditions are the 
same as current conditions for the first regional haze SIP. A five-year 
average of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated for each of 
the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days at the 
Virginia Class I areas. IMPROVE data records for Shenandoah National 
Park and James River Face Wilderness Area for the period 2000 to 2004 
meet the EPA requirements for data completeness. See pages 2-8 of EPA's 
2003 Tracking Progress Guidance. The 20 percent best and worst days for 
the baseline period of 2000-2004 for Shenandoah National Park and James 
River Face Wilderness Area is provided at the following Web site: 
http://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    For the Virginia Class I areas, the baseline visibility on the 20 
percent worst days is approximately 29 deciviews. Natural visibility in 
the area is predicted to be approximately 11 deciviews on the 20 
percent worst days. The natural and baseline conditions for Virginia's 
Class I areas for both the 20

[[Page 3700]]

percent worst and best days are presented in Table 1 below.

  Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for the Virginia
                              Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Average for 20%
           Class I area              worst days (dv)    Average for 20%
                                           \9\           best days (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Background Conditions:
    Shenandoah National Park......               11.4                3.1
    James River Face Wilderness                  11.1                4.4
     Area.........................
Baseline Visibility Conditions
 (2000-2004):
    Shenandoah National Park......               29.3               10.9
    James River Face Wilderness                  29.1               14.2
     Area.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, Virginia considered the uniform rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve 
that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's 
Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is 
not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or 
equivalent to the glidepath.
    The Commonwealth's implementation plan presents two sets of graphs, 
one for the 20 percent best days, and one for the 20 percent worst 
days, for its Class I areas. Virginia constructed the graph for the 
worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in accordance with EPA's 2003 Tracking 
Progress Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line from the 
baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of 
visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064 
for its area. For the best days, the graph includes a horizontal, 
straight line spanning from baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 to 
depict no degradation in visibility over the implementation period of 
the SIP. Virginia's SIP shows that the Commonwealth's RPGs for its area 
provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 percent worst days 
over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in 
visibility for the 20 percent best days over the same period, in 
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    For the Shenandoah National Park, the overall visibility 
improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference 
between baseline visibility of 29.3 deciviews for the 20 percent worst 
days and natural conditions of 11.4 deciviews, i.e., 17.9 deciviews. 
Over the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an 
average improvement of 0.298 deciviews per year to reach natural 
conditions. For the James River Face Wilderness Area, the overall 
visibility improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is the 
difference between baseline visibility of 29.1 deciviews for the 20 
percent worst days and natural conditions of 11.1 deciviews, i.e., 18.0 
deciviews. Over the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would 
require an average improvement of 0.30 deciviews per year to reach 
natural conditions. Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in 
order to achieve visibility improvements at least equivalent to the 
uniform rate of progress for the 20 percent worst days at Shenandoah 
National Park, Virginia would need to project at least 4.172 deciviews 
over the first implementation period (i.e., 0.298 deciviews x 14 years 
= 4.172 deciviews) of visibility improvement from the 29.1 deciviews 
baseline in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or below 24.928 
deciviews in 2018. Virginia would need to project at least 4.2 
deciviews improvement in order to achieve visibility improvements at 
least equivalent to the uniform rate of progress for the 20 percent 
worst days at James River Face Wilderness Area for the first 
implementation period. Virginia projects for Shenandoah National Park a 
7.4 deciview improvement to visibility from the 29.3 deciview baseline 
to 21.9 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a 
2.2 deciview improvement to 8.7 deciviews from the baseline visibility 
of 10.9 deciviews for the 20 percent least impaired days. For James 
River Face Wilderness Area, Virginia projects a 6.7 deciview 
improvement to visibility from the 29.1 deciview baseline to 22.4 
deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a 1.8 
deciview improvement to 12.4 deciviews from the baseline visibility of 
14.2 deciviews for the 20 percent least impaired days.

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

    As described in section III.E of this action, the LTS is a 
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state 
for achieving its RPGs. Virginia's LTS for the first implementation 
period addresses the emissions reductions from Federal, state, and 
local controls that take effect in the Commonwealth from the end of the 
baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Virginia LTS was 
developed by the Commonwealth, in coordination with the VISTAS RPO, 
through an evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification 
of the emissions units within Virginia and in surrounding states that 
likely have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the 
Commonwealth's Class I areas; (2) estimation of emissions reductions 
for 2018 based on all controls required or expected under Federal and 
state regulations for the 2004-2018 period (including BART); (3) 
comparison of projected visibility improvement with the uniform rate of 
progress for the Commonwealth's Class I areas; and (4) application of 
the four statutory factors in the reasonable progress analysis for the 
identified emissions units to determine if additional reasonable 
controls were required.
    CAIR is also an element of Virginia's LTS. CAIR rule revisions were 
approved into the Virginia SIP in 2007. Virginia opted to rely on CAIR 
emission reduction requirements to satisfy the BART requirements for 
SO2 and NOX from EGUs. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 
Therefore, Virginia only required its BART-eligible EGUs to evaluate PM 
emissions for determining whether they are subject to BART, and, if 
applicable, for performing a BART control assessment. See section 
III.D. of this notice for further details. Additionally, as discussed 
below in section V.C.5, Virginia concluded that no additional controls 
beyond CAIR are reasonable for reasonable progress for its EGUs for 
this first implementation period. Prior to the remand of CAIR, EPA 
believed the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR for specific BART and 
reasonable progress provisions affecting its EGUs was

[[Page 3701]]

adequate, as detailed later in this notice. As explained in section IV 
of this notice, EPA proposes today to issue a limited approval and a 
proposed limited disapproval of the Commonwealth's regional haze SIP 
revisions that rely on CAIR requirements.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical 
analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from Virginia. The 
2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and 
applying reductions expected from Federal and state regulations 
affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants 
NOX, PM, and SO2. The BART Guidelines direct 
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3 
impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in 
section V.C.3, VISTAS performed modeling sensitivity analyses, which 
demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NH3 do 
not significantly impair visibility in the VISTAS region. Thus, while 
emissions inventories were also developed for NH3 and VOC, 
and applicable Federal VOC reductions were incorporated into Virginia's 
regional haze analyses, Virginia did not further evaluate 
NH3 and VOC emissions sources for potential controls under 
BART or reasonable progress.
    VISTAS developed emissions for five inventory source 
classifications: Stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-
road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point sources are 
those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year, 
depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the facility level. 
Stationary area sources are those sources whose individual emissions 
are relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the 
collective emissions from the source category could be significant. 
VISTAS estimated emissions on a countywide level for the inventory 
categories of: (a) Stationary area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) 
mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can move but does not use the 
roadways); and (c) biogenic sources (which are natural sources of 
emissions, such as trees). On-road mobile source emissions are 
estimated by vehicle type and road type, and are summed to the 
countywide level.
    There are many Federal and state control programs being implemented 
that VISTAS and Virginia anticipate will reduce emissions between the 
end of the baseline period and 2018. Emissions reductions from these 
control programs are projected to achieve substantial visibility 
improvement by 2018 in the Virginia Class I areas. The control programs 
relied upon by Virginia include CAIR; NOX SIP Call; North 
Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act; Georgia multi-pollutant rule; consent 
decrees for Tampa Electric, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Gulf 
Power-Plant Crist, East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC)--Cooper and 
Spurlock stations, and American Electric Power (AEP); NOX 
and/or VOC reductions from the control rules in 1-hour ozone SIPs for 
Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky; North Carolina's 
NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology state rule for 
Philip Morris USA and Norandal USA in the Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock Hill 
1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area; Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel 
engine standards for on-road trucks and buses; federal Tier 2 tailpipe 
controls for on-road vehicles; federal large spark ignition and 
recreational vehicle controls; and EPA's non-road diesel rules. 
Controls from various federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
(MACT) rules were also utilized in the development of the 2018 emission 
inventory projections. These MACT rules include the industrial boiler/
process heater MACT (referred to as ``Industrial Boiler MACT''), the 
combustion turbine and reciprocating internal combustion engines MACTs, 
and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT standards.
    On June 8, 2007, and effective July 30, 2007, the U.S. District 
Court of Appeals mandated the vacatur and remand of the Industrial 
Boiler MACT Rule.\10\ This MACT was vacated since it was directly 
affected by the vacatur and remand of the Commercial and Industrial 
Solid Waste Incinerator Definition Rule. Notwithstanding the vacatur of 
the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule, the VISTAS states, including Virginia, 
decided to leave these controls in the modeling for their regional haze 
SIPs since it was believed at the time that by 2018, EPA would re-
promulgate an industrial boiler MACT rule or the states would have 
addressed the issue through state-level case-by-case MACT reviews in 
accordance with section 112(j) of the CAA. This in fact was the case 
since EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the 
vacatur on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006), and issued a final rule on March 
21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). Thus, Virginia has sufficient time to assure 
the required controls are in place prior to the end of the first 
implementation period in 2018 since compliance with MACT limits for 
industrial boilers will occur well before the 2018 RPGs for regional 
haze. Even though Virginia's modeling is based on the vacated 
Industrial Boiler MACT limits, Virginia's modeling conclusions are 
unlikely to be affected because the expected reductions due to the 
vacated rule were relatively small compared to the Commonwealth's total 
SO2, PM2.5, and coarse particulate matter 
(PM10) emissions in 2018 (i.e., 0.1 to 0.2 percent, 
depending on the pollutant, of the projected 2018 SO2, 
PM2.5, and PM10 inventory). Thus, EPA does not 
expect that differences between the vacated and final Industrial Boiler 
MACT emission limits would affect the adequacy of the existing Virginia 
regional haze SIP. If there is a need to address discrepancies between 
projected emissions reductions from the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT 
and the Industrial Boiler MACT finalized in March 2011, we expect 
Virginia to do so in their 5-year progress report. Below in Tables 2 
and 3 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018 estimated emission 
inventories for Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250.

                             Table 2--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for Virginia
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NH3          PM10        PM2.5         NOX          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................       43,906        3,231       17,212       12,771      147,301      305,107
Area..............................      174,851       43,975      239,096       45,292       51,753      105,982
On-Road Mobile....................      157,989        7,770        5,312        3,067      219,835        8,196
Non-Road Mobile...................       74,866           48        8,728        8,288       63,219        8,663
Biogenics.........................      923,219          N/A          N/A          N/A       11,443          N/A
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3702]]

 
    Total.........................    1,374,831       55,024      270,348       69,418      493,551      427,948
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* N/A--not applicable.


                           Table 3--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for West Virginia
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NH3          PM10        PM2.5         NOX          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................       54,200        4,226       27,662       23,570      122,019      183,164
Area (includes fires).............      152,186       50,296      277,969       48,942       56,736      109,538
On-Road Mobile....................       55,992        9,653        2,813        1,404       57,192          949
Non-road Mobile...................       49,052           61        6,208        5,891       40,393          507
Biogenics.........................      923,219          N/A          N/A          N/A       11,443          N/A
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................    1,234,649      287,783      314,652       79,807      287,783      294,158
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* N/A--not applicable.

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for 
Uniform Rate of Progress
    VISTAS performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 10 
southeastern states, including Virginia. The modeling analysis is a 
complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the modeling 
system. VISTAS used the following modeling system:
     Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model 
is a nonhydrostatic, prognostic, meteorological model routinely used 
for urban- and regional- scale photochemical, PM2.5, and 
regional haze regulatory modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 
Emissions modeling system is an emissions modeling system that 
generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of mobile, non-road 
mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission sources for 
photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale 
Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model 
capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and acid deposition at a 
regional scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was 
CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified through VISTAS with a module for 
Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open and transparent manner that was 
also subjected to outside peer review.

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018 
was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer cells that covers the 10 
VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) and 
states adjacent to them. This grid is nested within a larger national 
CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer grid cells that covers the 
continental United States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions 
of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the east and west coasts. 
Selection of a representative period of meteorology is crucial for 
evaluating baseline air quality conditions and projecting future 
changes in air quality due to changes in emissions of visibility-
impairing pollutants. VISTAS conducted an in-depth analysis which 
resulted in the selection of the entire year of 2002 (January 1-
December 31) as the best period of meteorology available for conducting 
the CMAQ modeling. The VISTAS states modeling was developed consistent 
with EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for 
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, 
PM2.5, and Regional Haze, located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-p.m.-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/B-07-
002), April 2007, and EPA document, Emissions Inventory Guidance for 
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, located at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001, 
August 2005, updated November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
    VISTAS examined the model performance of the regional modeling for 
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results 
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and 
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts 
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support 
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those 
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the 
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated 
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone, 
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks 
and databases for the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a diverse set of 
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and 
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once VISTAS determined the model 
performance to be acceptable, VISTAS used the model to assess the 2018 
RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling 
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the Commonwealth of 
Virginia provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all 
required analyses used to determine the Commonwealth's LTS. The 
technical analyses and modeling used to develop the glidepath and to 
support the LTS are consistent with EPA's RHR, and interim and final 
EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA accepts the VISTAS technical modeling to 
support the LTS and determine visibility improvement for the uniform 
rate of progress because the modeling system was chosen and simulated 
according to EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with the VISTAS model 
performance procedures and results,

[[Page 3703]]

and that the CMAQ is an appropriate tool for the regional haze 
assessments for the Virginia LTS and regional haze SIP, further EPA 
analysis can be found in the Technical Support Document for the 
Modeling Portions of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Regional Haze SIP.
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, Source 
Categories, and Geographic Areas
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures 
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment 
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further 
reducing emissions from different pollutants, source sectors, and 
geographic areas, VISTAS developed emission sensitivity model runs 
using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various 
groups of emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the 
20 percent worst visibility days.
    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting 
visibility in the VISTAS region, VISTAS' contribution assessment, based 
on IMPROVE monitoring data, demonstrated that ammonium sulfate is the 
major contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at 
Class I areas in the VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 20 percent 
worst visibility days in 2000-2004, ammonium sulfate accounted for 69 
to 74 percent of the calculated light extinction for all but one of the 
Class I areas in the VISTAS states. In particular, for Shenandoah 
National Park and James River Face Wilderness Area, sulfate levels on 
the 20 percent worst days account for 60-70 percent of the visibility 
impairment. However, occasionally particulate organic matter (POM) can 
be a significant contributor as well. On the very few 20 percent worst 
visibility days that occur outside of the April through September time 
period, either PM, ammonium nitrate, or a combination of POM and 
ammonium nitrate offer significant contributions towards visibility 
impairment in the James River Face Wilderness Area and Shenandoah 
National Park.
    VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas into two types, either 
``coastal'' or ``inland'' (sometimes referred to as ``mountain'') 
sites, based on common/similar characteristics (e.g., terrain, 
geography, meteorology), to better represent variations in model 
sensitivity and performance within the VISTAS region, and to describe 
the common factors influencing visibility conditions in the two types 
of Class I areas. Virginia's Class I areas is an ``inland'' area.
    Results from VISTAS' emission sensitivity analyses indicate that 
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions are the 
dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst 
days at all Class I areas in VISTAS, including the Virginia areas. 
Virginia concluded that reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and 
non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS states would have the greatest 
visibility benefits for the Virginia Class I areas. Because ammonium 
nitrate is a small contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 
impairment on the 20 percent worst days at the inland Class I areas in 
VISTAS, which include Shenandoah National Park and James River Face 
Wilderness Area, the benefits of reducing NOX and 
NH3 emissions at these sites are small.
    The VISTAS sensitivity analyses show that VOC emissions from 
biogenic sources such as vegetation also contribute to visibility 
impairment. However, control of these biogenic sources of VOC would be 
extremely difficult, if not impossible. The anthropogenic sources of 
VOC emissions are minor compared to the biogenic sources. Therefore, 
controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions would have little if 
any visibility benefits at the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, 
including Virginia. The sensitivity analyses also show that reducing 
primary carbon from point sources, ground level sources, or fires is 
projected to have small to no visibility benefit at the VISTAS Class I 
areas.
    Virginia considered the factors listed in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) 
and in section III.E. of this action to develop its LTS as described 
below. Virginia, in conjunction with VISTAS, demonstrated in its SIP 
that elemental carbon (a product of highway and non-road diesel 
engines, agricultural burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires), fine 
soils (a product of construction activities and activities that 
generate fugitive dust), and ammonia are relatively minor contributors 
to visibility impairment at the Class I areas in Virginia. Virginia 
considered agricultural and forestry smoke management techniques to 
address visibility impacts from elemental carbon. The Virginia 
Department of Forestry (VDOF) has developed smoke management guidelines 
and these guidelines specifically note that Federal Class I air quality 
areas are sensitive areas that need special consideration if located 
near planned prescribed burns.
    With regard to fine soils, the Commonwealth considered those 
activities that generate fugitive dust, including construction 
activities. With regard to all road and bridge construction activities, 
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) uses Section 107.14(b)(2) 
of VDOT's 2007 Road and Bridge Specifications in all contracts. With 
regard to ammonia, the Commonwealth has chosen not to develop controls 
for ammonia emissions from Virginia sources in this first 
implementation period because of its relatively minor contribution to 
visibility impairment. EPA concurs with the Commonwealth's technical 
demonstration showing that elemental carbon, fine soils, and ammonia 
are not significant contributors to visibility in the Commonwealth's 
Class I area, and therefore, finds that Virginia has adequately 
satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by VISTAS predict that 
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial 
point sources will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in 
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, more than any other visibility-
impairing pollutant. Specific to Virginia, the VISTAS sensitivity 
analysis projects visibility benefits in Shenandoah National Park and 
James River Face Wilderness Area from SO2 reductions from 
EGUs in nearby VISTAS states. Additional, smaller benefits are 
projected from SO2 emissions reductions from non-utility 
industrial point sources. SO2 emissions contributions to 
visibility impairment from other RPO regions are comparatively small in 
contrast to the VISTAS states' contributions, and, thus, controlling 
sources outside of the VISTAS region is predicted to provide less 
significant improvements in visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS.
    Taking the VISTAS sensitivity analyses results into consideration, 
Virginia concluded that reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and 
non-EGU point sources in certain VISTAS states, states in the Midwest 
Regional Planning Organization and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 
Union (MANE-VU) regions, and outside the modeling domain would have the 
greatest visibility benefits for the Virginia Class I areas. The 
Commonwealth chose to focus solely on evaluating certain SO2 
sources contributing to visibility impairment to the Commonwealth's 
Class I areas for additional emissions reductions for reasonable 
progress in this first implementation period (described in sections 
V.C.4. and V.C.5. of this notice). EPA agrees with the Commonwealth's 
analyses and conclusions used to determine the pollutants and source 
categories that

[[Page 3704]]

most contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I area and finds 
the Commonwealth's approach to focus on developing a LTS that includes 
largely additional measures for point sources of SO2 
emissions to be appropriate.
    SO2 sources for which it is demonstrated that no 
additional controls are reasonable in this current implementation 
period will not be exempted from future assessments for controls in 
subsequent implementation periods or, when appropriate, from the five-
year periodic SIP reviews. In future implementation periods, additional 
controls on these SO2 sources evaluated in the first 
implementation period may be determined to be reasonable, based on a 
reasonable progress control evaluation, for continued progress toward 
natural conditions for the 20 percent worst days and to avoid further 
degradation of the 20 percent best days. Similarly, in subsequent 
implementation periods, the Commonwealth may use different criteria for 
identifying sources for evaluation and may consider other pollutants as 
visibility conditions change over time.
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable 
Progress Controls in Virginia and Surrounding Areas
    As discussed in section V.C.3. of this notice, through 
comprehensive evaluations by VISTAS and the Southern Appalachian 
Mountains Initiative (SAMI),\11\ the VISTAS states concluded that 
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions account for 
the greatest portion of the regional haze affecting the Class I areas 
in VISTAS states, including those in Virginia. Utility and non-utility 
boilers are the main sources of SO2 emissions within the 
southeastern United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated in a 
voluntary regional partnership ``to identify and recommend 
reasonable measures to remedy existing and prevent future adverse 
effects from human-induced air pollution on the air quality related 
values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.'' States cooperated 
with FLMs, the EPA, industry, environmental organizations, and 
academia to complete a technical assessment of the impacts of acid 
deposition, ozone, and fine particles on sensitive resources in the 
Southern Appalachians. The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August 
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VISTAS developed a methodology for Virginia, which enabled the 
Commonwealth to focus its reasonable progress analysis on those 
geographic regions and source categories that impact visibility at its 
Class I areas. Recognizing that there was neither sufficient time nor 
adequate resources available to evaluate all emissions units within a 
given area of influence (AOI) around each Class I area that Virginia's 
sources impact, the Commonwealth established a threshold to determine 
which emissions units would be evaluated for reasonable progress 
control. In applying this methodology, VADEQ first calculated the 
fractional contribution to visibility impairment from all emissions 
units within the SO2 AOI for its Class I areas, and those 
surrounding areas in other states potentially impacted by emissions 
from emissions units in Virginia. The Commonwealth then identified 
those emissions units with a contribution of one percent or more to the 
visibility impairment at that particular Class I area, and evaluated 
each of these units for control measures for reasonable progress, using 
the following four ``reasonable progress factors'' as required under 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of compliance; (ii) time necessary for 
compliance; (iii) energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance; and (iv) remaining useful life of the emissions unit.
    Virginia's SO2 AOI methodology captured 44.3 percent of 
the total point source SO2 contribution to visibility 
impairment in the Shenandoah Class I area, and required an evaluation 
of 18 emissions units (5 of which are located in Virginia). The AOI 
methodology captured 49.9 percent of the total point source 
SO2 contribution to visibility impairment in the James River 
Face Class I area, and required an evaluation of 12 emission units (8 
of which are located in Virginia). Capturing a significantly greater 
percentage of the total contribution would involve an evaluation of 
many more emissions units that have substantially less impact. EPA 
believes the approach developed by VISTAS and implemented for the Class 
I areas in Virginia is a reasonable methodology to prioritize the most 
significant contributors to regional haze and to identify sources to 
assess for reasonable progress control in the Commonwealth's Class I 
areas. The approach is consistent with EPA's Reasonable Progress 
Guidance. The technical approach of VISTAS and Virginia was objective 
and based on several analyses, which included a large universe of 
emissions units within and surrounding the Commonwealth of Virginia and 
all of the 18 VISTAS Class I areas. It also included an analysis of the 
VISTAS emissions units affecting nearby Class I areas surrounding the 
VISTAS states that are located in other RPOs' Class I areas.
5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable Progress 
Analysis
    VADEQ identified 11 facilities in Virginia (see Table 4) with 
SO2 emissions that were above the Commonwealth's minimum 
threshold for reasonable progress evaluation because they were modeled 
to fall within the sulfate AOI of any Class I area and have a one 
percent or greater contribution to the sulfate visibility impairment to 
at least one Class I area.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See also Virginia's SIP, Appendix H, Table 7.7.4-2. Units 
within Virginia with Visibility Impairment Contributions of at least 
1%.

  Table 4--Virginia Facilities Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With a Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis:
  International Paper Company, power boiler 7.
  MeadWestvaco, single stack for boilers 6-9.
  Roanoke Cement Company, kiln 5.
  Georgia Pacific--Big Island, boiler 4.
  Mohawk Industries, boiler 7.
  Celanese Acetate, LLC, boilers 1-7.
EGU Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis:
  AEP-Clinch River, point ID 1, 2, 3.
  AEP-Glyn Lyn, point ID 3.
  Dominion-Bremo, point ID 1, 2.
  Dominion-Possum Point, point ID 5.
  Dominon-Chesterfield, point ID 6, 8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commonwealth also included appropriate documentation in its SIP 
of the technical analysis it used to assess the need for and 
implementation of reasonable progress controls. VADEQ analyzed whether 
SO2 controls should be required for the facilities subject 
to reasonable progress based on a consideration of the four factors set 
out in the CAA and EPA's regulations. For the limited purpose of 
evaluating the cost of compliance for the reasonable progress 
assessment in this first regional haze SIP for the non-EGUs, VADEQ 
concluded that it was not equitable to require non-EGUs to bear a 
greater economic burden than EGUs for a given control strategy. Using 
CAIR as a guide, VADEQ used a cost of $2,000 per ton of SO2 
controlled or reduced as a threshold for cost effectiveness. Although 
the use of a specific threshold for assessing costs means that a state 
may not fully consider available emissions reduction measures above its 
threshold that would result in meaningful visibility improvement, EPA 
believes that the Virginia SIP still ensures reasonable progress. In 
proposing to approve Virginia's reasonable progress analysis, EPA is 
placing great weight on the fact

[[Page 3705]]

that there is no indication in the SIP submittal that Virginia, as a 
result of using a specific cost effectiveness threshold, rejected 
potential reasonable progress measures that would have had a meaningful 
impact on visibility in its Class I areas. EPA notes that given the 
emissions reductions resulting from CAIR, Virginia's BART 
determinations, and the measures in nearby states, the visibility 
improvements projected for the affected Class I area are in excess of 
that needed to be on the uniform rate of progress glidepath. After the 
Commonwealth submitted its regional haze SIP on October 4, 2010, 
demonstrating that no additional controls on non-EGU sources identified 
in the AOI were reasonable because it was economically and/or 
technically infeasible, Virginia did additional analysis and found that 
a higher efficiency of control was reasonable at the MeadWestvaco 
Corporation. VADEQ submitted, on May 6, 2011, a permit to incorporate 
the additional 15 percent control for MeadWestvaco Corporation for 
achieving additional reasonable progress into their regional haze SIP.
6. BART
    BART is an element of Virginia's LTS for the first implementation 
period. The BART evaluation process consists of three components: (a) 
An identification of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) an assessment 
of whether the BART-eligible sources are subject to BART and (c) a 
determination of the BART controls. These components, as addressed by 
VADEQ and VADEQ's findings, are discussed below.
a. BART-Eligible Sources
    The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the Commonwealth's boundaries. VADEQ identified 
the BART-eligible sources in Virginia by utilizing the three 
eligibility criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's 
regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emissions units at the 
facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART 
Guidelines; (2) the emissions units were not in operation prior to 
August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1977; and (3) these 
units have the potential to emit 250 tons or more per year of any 
visibility-impairing pollutant.
    The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO2, 
NOX and direct PM (including both PM10 and 
PM2.5) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants, and to 
exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from 
a source impair visibility in an area. See 70 FR 39160. VISTAS modeling 
demonstrated that VOC from anthropogenic sources and ammonia from point 
sources are not significant visibility-impairing pollutants in 
Virginia, as discussed in section V.C.3. of this action. VADEQ has 
determined, based on the VISTAS modeling, that ammonia emissions from 
the Commonwealth's point sources are not anticipated to cause or 
contribute significantly to any impairment of visibility in Class I 
areas and should be exempt for BART purposes.
b. BART-Subject Sources
    The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those 
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to 
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review 
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute 
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the 
BART Guidelines, Virginia required each of its BART-eligible sources to 
develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent of their 
contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas.
1. Modeling Methodology
    The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF \13\ modeling 
system (CALPUFF) or another appropriate model to predict the visibility 
impacts from a single source on a Class I area, and therefore, to 
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is 
subject to BART.'' The Guidelines state that EPA believes that CALPUFF 
is the best regulatory modeling application currently available for 
predicting a single source's contribution to visibility impairment. See 
70 FR 39162. Virginia, in coordination with VISTAS, used the CALPUFF 
modeling system to determine whether individual sources in Virginia 
were subject to or exempt from BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire 
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different 
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST, 
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the 
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF 
modeling system are available from the model developer on the 
following Web site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling 
protocol for making individual source attributions and suggest that 
states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues 
prior to modeling. The VISTAS states, including Virginia, developed a 
``Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART Analyses.'' 
Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade groups, 
and other interested parties, actively participated in the development 
and review of the VISTAS protocol. VISTAS developed a post-processing 
approach to use the new IMPROVE equation with the CALPUFF model results 
so that the BART analyses could consider both the old and new IMPROVE 
equations.
2. Contribution Threshold
    For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to 
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set 
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single 
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at 
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``A single source that 
is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered 
to `cause' visibility impairment.'' The BART Guidelines also state that 
``the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source 
`contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across 
states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for 
determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment 
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' The BART Guidelines affirm 
that states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the 
location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a 
Class I area justifies this approach.
    Virginia used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for 
determining which sources are subject to BART. Virginia concluded that, 
considering the results of the visibility impacts modeling conducted, a 
0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate and a lower threshold was not 
warranted since the majority of the visibility impacts were well below 
0.5 deciview and the sources are distributed across the Commonwealth. 
Also, even though several sources impacted each Class I area, the 
overall visibility impacts were low from the sources. As stated in the 
BART Guidelines, where a state concludes that a large number of these 
BART-eligible sources within proximity of a Class I area justify a 
lower threshold, it may

[[Page 3706]]

warrant establishing a lower contribution threshold. See 70 FR 39161-
39162, July 6, 2005. EPA is proposing to agree with Virginia that the 
overall impacts of these sources are not sufficient to warrant a lower 
contribution threshold and that a 0.5 deciview threshold was 
appropriate in this instance.
3. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    Virginia initially identified 13 facilities with BART-eligible 
sources. Three of these are EGUs and ten are non-EGU sources. The 
Commonwealth subsequently determined that all three EGUs and seven of 
the non-EGU sources are exempt from being considered BART-subject. 
Table 5 identifies the 13 BART-eligible sources located in Virginia, 
and of these, lists the three non-EGU sources subject to BART.

       Table 5--Virginia BART-Eligible and Subject-to-BART Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART Analysis:
  O-N Minerals Global Chemstone Operation.
  MeadWestvaco Packaging Resource Group.
  Georgia Pacific Corp Big Island Plant.
Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to BART:
  EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources: \14\
    Dominion Virginia Power--Chesterfield.
    Dominion--Yorktown.
    Dominion Virginia Power--Possum Point.
  Non-EGU BART Modeling:
    Island Creek Coal Co./Virginia Pocahontas Mine.
    Chemical Lime Company--Kimballton Plant.
    Intermet Foundry Archer Creek.
    Stone Container Corporation (D/B/A Smurfit Stone).
    Honeywell Nylon LLC--Hopewell.
    International Paper Company.
    Duke Energy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All but three of the non-EGU sources demonstrated that they are not 
subject to BART by showing through modeling less than a 0.5 deciview 
visibility impact at the affected Class I areas. This modeling involved 
assessing the visibility impact of emissions of NOX, 
SO2, and PM10 as applicable to individual 
facilities. The three sources that were not able to model an exemption 
from BART are listed in Table 5 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. The Commonwealth 
relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX 
for its EGUs subject to CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2 and NOX were not 
analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the three BART-eligible EGUs, Virginia relied upon CAIR 
emission limits for SO2 and NOX to satisfy the 
obligation to comply with the BART requirements in accordance with 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore, EGU sources only modeled PM10 
emissions, including all PM smaller than 10 microns (e.g., 
PM2.5). All of the EGUs demonstrated that their 
PM10 emissions do not contribute to visibility impairment in 
any Class I area.
    Prior to the remand of CAIR, the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR to 
satisfy BART for NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR 
EGUs was fully approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 
However, as explained in section IV of this notice, given the status of 
CAIR, EPA is proposing to find that Virginia may not rely on CAIR to 
provide reductions to satisfy the BART requirements of the regional 
haze program. Although CAIR is in force once again following the 
court's order staying the Transport Rule, it will not remain in effect 
indefinitely. EPA proposes today to issue a limited approval and a 
limited disapproval of the Commonwealth's regional haze SIP revision.
c. BART Determinations for non-EGU Sources
    In accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine the level of 
control that represents BART for each of the three non-EGU BART-subject 
sources, the state first reviewed existing controls on these units to 
assess whether these constituted the best controls currently available, 
then identified what other technically feasible controls are available, 
and finally, evaluated the technically feasible controls using the five 
BART statutory factors. Virginia's evaluations and conclusions, and 
EPA's assessment, are summarized below.
    The O-N Mineral permit was submitted as a SIP revision by VADEQ on 
January 14, 2010 and an amendment was submitted on November 19, 2010, 
to establish BART emission limits, monitoring, and record keeping 
requirements for the O-N Mineral Facility. VADEQ determined that BART 
is the permanent shutdown of the calcimatic kiln (U-12) and limits for 
SO2 are 0.29 pounds per tons stone feed (lbs/tsf) and 14.7 
pounds per hour (lbs/hr), NOX limits are 1.74 lbs/tsf and 
87.0 lbs/hr with the average of a 3 hour sampling period, and PM limits 
are 0.12lbs/tsf and 6.0lbs/hr with the average of a 3 hour sampling 
period for the rotary kiln (U-5). The compliance date for these BART 
controls for O-N Minerals is 180 days after August 6, 2010. Once the 
BART limits are established, the source is then required by 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(v) to maintain the control equipment required and 
establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated and 
maintained.
    The MeadWestvaco permit was submitted by VADEQ on March 6, 2009. 
MeadWestvaco has four units that are BART-subject. These units are two 
power boilers, number 9 and 10, recovery furnace number 1, and smelt 
dissolving tank number 1. The number 9 boiler limit is a combined 
emission limit for boilers number 6 through 9 because all four boilers 
emit through a single stack. The limits for nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2) are 8242.1 lbs/hr and 1,060 tons per year (tpy), for 
SO2 the limits are 1,831 lbs/hr and 8,020 tpy, and for 
PM10 the limits are 166.4 lbs/hr and 728.9 tpy. The emission 
limits for power boiler number 10 are a fuel restriction of at least 90 
percent natural gas utilization for SO2, 66.0 lbs/hr of 
NOX, and 2.51 lbs/hr of PM. The emission limits for recovery 
furnace number 1 for SO2 are 713.7 lbs/hr, for 
NOX the limits are 211.2 lbs/hr, for PM the emission limits 
are 150.0 lbs/hr, 85.0 lbs/hr on an annual average, and 350 tpy, and 
for PM10 the emission limits are 103.8 lbs/hr, 58.8 lbs/hr 
on an annual average and 242 tpy. The emission limits for the smelt 
dissolving tank for SO2 are 14.8 lbs/hr and 64.8 tpy, for PM 
the limits are 14.1 lbs/hr and 58.0 tpy, and for PM10 the 
limits are 12.6 lbs/hr and 51.9 tpy. As a part of the BART 
determination process Virginia determined that MeadWestvaco could get 
an additional 15 percent SO2 reduction, which would be an 
additional RPG reduction. The new SO2 limit for MeadWestvaco 
boilers number 6 through 9 submitted by VADEQ on May 6, 2011 is 1,556 
lbs/hr and 6,817 tpy. MeadWestvaco must comply with the RPG limit by 
January 1, 2016.
    The Georgia Pacific--Big Island permit was submitted by VADEQ on 
July 17, 2008. Georgia Pacific--Big Island has two power boilers 
(numbers 4 and 5) that are BART-subject. The emission limits for power 
boiler number 4 for SO2 are 50 lbs/hr and 219 tpy, the 
limits for NOX are 169 lbs/hr and 740.2 tpy, and the limits 
for PM10 are 0.07 pounds per one million British thermal 
unit (lbs/MMBtu), 19.9 lbs/hr and 87 tpy. The effective date for the 
emission limits of power boiler number 4 is June 12, 2008 for 
NOX and PM10. The effective date for the 
SO2 emission limits of power boiler number 4 is 180 days 
after scrubber is installed for the

[[Page 3707]]

hourly limit and July 1, 2013 or 13 months after the scrubber 
performance test for the annual limit. The emission limits for power 
boiler number 5 for SO2 are 485.1 lbs/hr and 374.0 tpy, the 
limits for NOX are 139.3 lbs/hr and 610.1 tpy, and the 
limits for PM10 are 0.07 lbs/MMBtu, 23.7 lbs/hr and 103.9 
tpy. The effective date for the emission limits of power boiler number 
5 is 12 months after June, 12, 2008.
    EPA agrees with VADEQ's analyses and conclusions for the BART 
emission units located at the O-N Mineral, MeadWestvaco, and Georgia 
Pacific--Big Island facilities. EPA has reviewed the Virginia analyses 
and concluded they were conducted in a manner that is consistent with 
EPA's BART Guidelines. EPA has determined that Virginia's submittals 
meet the requirements of section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA to consider 
available technology, the cost of compliance, the energy and nonair 
quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control 
equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the 
source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may 
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. 
Therefore, the conclusions reflect a reasonable application of EPA's 
guidance to these sources.
    The BART determinations for each of the facilities discussed above 
and the resulting BART emission limits were adopted by Virginia into 
its regional haze SIP. VADEQ incorporated the BART emission limits into 
state operating permits, and submitted these permits individually, as 
part the Commonwealth's regional haze SIP. The BART units in Virginia 
(O-N Minerals, MeadWestvaco, and Georgia Pacific--Big Island) are 
required to comply with these emission limits no later than five years 
after publication in the Federal Register of EPA's final approval of 
the Virginia regional haze SIP, to allow time for needed operational 
changes.
7. RPGs
    The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish RPGs 
for each Class I area within the state (expressed in deciviews) that 
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility. 
VISTAS modeled visibility improvements under existing Federal and state 
regulations for the period 2004-2018, and additional control measures 
which the VISTAS states planned to implement in the first 
implementation period. At the time of VISTAS modeling, some of the 
other states with sources potentially impacting visibility at the 
Virginia Class I areas had not yet made final control determinations 
for BART and/or reasonable progress, and thus, these controls were not 
included in the modeling submitted by Virginia. Any controls resulting 
from those determinations will provide additional emissions reductions 
and resulting visibility improvement, which give further assurances 
that Virginia will achieve its RPGs. This modeling demonstrates that 
the 2018 base control scenario provides for an improvement in 
visibility better than the uniform rate of progress for the Virginia 
Class I areas for the most impaired days over the period of the 
implementation plan and ensures no degradation in visibility for the 
least impaired days over the same period.
    As shown in Table 6 below, Virginia's 2018 RPG for the 20 percent 
worst days provides greater visibility improvement by 2018 than the 
uniform rate of progress for the Commonwealth's Class I areas (i.e., 
26.64 deciviews in 2018). Also, the RPG for the 20 percent best days 
provides greater visibility improvement by 2018 than current best day 
conditions. The modeling supporting the analysis of these RPGs is 
consistent with EPA guidance prior to the CAIR remand. The regional 
haze provisions specify that a state may not adopt a RPG that 
represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from 
other CAA requirements during the implementation period. See 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the CAIR states with Class I areas, like 
Virginia, took into account emissions reductions anticipated from CAIR 
in determining their 2018 RPGs.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas similarly 
relied on CAIR emission reductions within the state to address some 
or all of their contribution to visibility impairment in other 
states' Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area state(s) used 
to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). Certain surrounding non-
CAIR states also relied on reductions due to CAIR in nearby states 
to develop their regional haze SIP submittals.

                                           Table 6--Virginia 2018 RPGs
                                                 [In deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Uniform rate
                                                  2018 RPG--20%  of progress at                    2018 RPG--20%
                                    Baseline       worst days       2018--20%        Baseline        best days
         Class I area           visibility--20%   (improvement     worst days    visibility--20%   (improvement
                                   worst days    from baseline)   (improvement      best days     from baseline)
                                                                 from baseline)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shenandoah National Park......             29.3      21.9 (7.4)      25.1 (4.2)             10.9       8.7 (2.2)
James River Face Wilderness                29.1      22.4 (6.7)      24.9 (4.2)             14.2      12.4 (1.8)
 Area.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPGs for the Class I areas in Virginia are based on modeled 
projections of future conditions that were developed using the best 
available information at the time the analysis was done. These 
projections can be expected to change as additional information 
regarding future conditions becomes available. For example, new sources 
may be built, existing sources may shut down or modify production in 
response to changed economic circumstances, and facilities may change 
their emission characteristics as they install control equipment to 
comply with new rules. It would be both impractical and resource-
intensive to require a state to continually revise its RPGs every time 
an event affecting these future projections changed.
    Virginia submitted a revision on May 6, 2011 requiring an 
additional reduction from MeadWestvaco for reasonable progress. The RPG 
is an additional 15 percent control of SO2 beyond the BART 
emission limit from boilers number 6 through 9. This additional 
reduction of SO2 is required to be implemented by January 1, 
2016. The revised emission limits have been incorporated into the 
Commonwealth's operating permit.
    EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement to meet a long-
term goal based on modeled projections of future visibility conditions, 
and addressed the uncertainties associated with RPGs in several ways. 
EPA made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a

[[Page 3708]]

mandatory standard that must be achieved by a particular date. See 64 
FR 35733. At the same time, EPA established a requirement for a 
midcourse review and, if necessary, correction of the states' regional 
haze plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls for a 
five-year progress review after submittal of the initial regional haze 
plan. The purpose of this progress review is to assess the 
effectiveness of emission management strategies in meeting the RPG and 
to provide an assessment of whether current implementation strategies 
are sufficient for the state or affected states to meet their RPGs. If 
a state concludes, based on its assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I 
area will not be met, the RHR requires the state to take appropriate 
action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate action will 
depend on the basis for the state's conclusion that the current 
strategies are insufficient to meet the RPGs. Virginia specifically 
committed to follow this process in the LTS portion of its submittal.
    EPA anticipates that since the Transport Rule will result in 
greater emission reductions overall than CAIR, implementation of the 
Transport Rule will also result in similar or better improvements in 
visibility than predicted from CAIR. By the time Virginia is required 
to undertake its five-year progress review, however, it is likely that 
the impact of the Transport Rule and other measures on visibility can 
be meaningfully assessed. If meeting the RPGs at its Class I Federal 
area is in jeopardy, the Commonwealth will be required to address this 
circumstance in its five-year review. Accordingly, EPA proposes to 
approve Virginia's RPGs for the Shenandoah National Park and James 
River Face Wilderness Area.

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements

    EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI 
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as 
explained in sections III.F and III.G. of this action. Under EPA's RAVI 
regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral 
vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral 
vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the 
mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama 
located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.'' 
Visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area includes any integral 
vista associated with that area. The FLMs did not identify any integral 
vistas in Virginia. In addition, the Class I area in Virginia is 
neither experiencing RAVI, nor are any of its sources affected by the 
RAVI provisions. Thus, the October 4, 2010, Virginia regional haze SIP 
submittal does not explicitly address the two requirements regarding 
coordination of the regional haze with the RAVI LTS and monitoring 
provisions. However, Virginia previously made a commitment to address 
RAVI should the FLM certify visibility impairment from an individual 
source. EPA finds that this regional haze submittal appropriately 
supplements and augments Virginia's RAVI visibility provisions to 
address regional haze by updating the monitoring and LTS provisions as 
summarized below in this section.
    In the October 4, 2010 submittal, VADEQ updated its visibility 
monitoring program and developed a LTS to address regional haze. Also 
in this submittal, VADEQ affirmed its commitment to complete items 
required in the future under EPA's RHR. Specifically, VADEQ made a 
commitment to review and revise its regional haze implementation plan 
and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every 10 years 
thereafter. See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance with the requirements 
listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) of EPA's regional haze regulations and 40 
CFR 51.306(c) of the RAVI LTS regulations, VADEQ made a commitment to 
submit a report to EPA on progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory 
Class I area located within Virginia and in each mandatory Class I area 
located outside Virginia which may be affected by emissions from within 
Virginia. The progress report is required to be in the form of a SIP 
revision and is due every five years following the initial submittal of 
the regional haze SIP. Consistent with EPA's monitoring regulations for 
RAVI and regional haze, Virginia will rely on the IMPROVE network for 
compliance purposes, in addition to any RAVI monitoring that may be 
needed in the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the 
Virginia new source review (NSR) rules, previously approved in the 
Commonwealth's SIP, continue to provide a framework for review and 
coordination with the FLMs on new sources which may have an adverse 
impact on visibility in either form (i.e., RAVI and/or regional haze) 
in any Class I Federal area. The Virginia SIP contains a plan 
addressing the associated monitoring and reporting requirements. See 53 
FR 26256, July 12, 1988. Although EPA's approval of this plan neglected 
to remove the Federally promulgated provisions set forth in 40 CFR 
52.936, EPA intends to correct this omission in a separate future 
rulemaking.

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Virginia is the 
IMPROVE network. As discussed in section V.B.2. of this notice, there 
are currently two IMPROVE sites in Virginia, which serve as the 
monitoring sites for Shenandoah National Park and James River Face 
Wilderness Area in Virginia.
    IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for 
the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the Virginia regional 
haze submittal. In the submittal, Virginia states its intention to rely 
on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring 
requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional haze 
implementation periods. Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network 
will be used nearly continuously for preparing the five-year progress 
reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis 
of the preceding five years of data. The Visibility Information 
Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and 
the other RPOs to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data 
analysis tools. Virginia is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to 
maintain the VIEWS or a similar data management system to facilitate 
analysis of the IMPROVE data.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, the FLMs perform long-term 
limited monitoring that provides additional insight into progress 
toward regional haze goals. Also, VADEQ operates a comprehensive 
PM2.5 network of filter-based Federal reference method 
monitors, continuous mass monitors, and filter-based speciated 
monitors.

F. Consultation With States and FLMs

1. Consultation With Other States
    In December 2006 and in May 2007, the State Air Directors from the 
VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose 
of the meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for 
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states 
invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide 
additional feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses 
showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of 
the Class I areas

[[Page 3709]]

in the VISTAS region. VADEQ has evaluated the impact of sources on 
Class I areas in neighboring states. The state in which a Class I area 
is located is responsible for determining which sources, both inside 
and outside of that state, to evaluate for reasonable progress 
controls. Because many of these states had not yet defined their 
criteria for identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress, 
VADEQ applied its AOI methodology to identify sources in the 
Commonwealth that have emissions units with impacts large enough to 
potentially warrant further evaluation and analysis. The Commonwealth 
identified five emissions units in Virginia with a contribution of one 
percent or more to the visibility impairment at Class I areas in 
neighboring states.
    Regarding the impact of sources outside of the Commonwealth on the 
Class I areas in Virginia, VADEQ sent letters to Maryland, North 
Carolina, and West Virginia pertaining to emissions units within these 
states that the Commonwealth believes contributed one percent or higher 
to visibility impairment in the Virginia Class I areas. Virginia 
identified three facilities in Maryland (Westvaco/Luke Plant, Eastalco 
Aluminum, and Mirant Mid-Atlantic), one facility in North Carolina 
(Duke Energy Dan River Steam Station), and four facilities in West 
Virginia (Capital Cement Corporation, Dominion-Mount Storm, Monogahela-
Harrison, and Appalachian Power-John E. Amos) as meeting its 
SO2 AOI contribution threshold. VADEQ opted not to request 
any additional emissions reductions for reasonable progress from North 
Carolina during the first implementation period. Responses from the 
neighboring states can be found in Virginia's Appendix J of the October 
4, 2010 submittal. Any controls resulting from those will provide 
additional emissions reductions and resulting visibility improvement, 
which gives further assurances that Virginia will achieve its RPGs. 
Therefore, to be conservative, Virginia opted not to rely on any 
additional emissions reductions from sources located outside the 
Commonwealth's boundaries beyond those already identified in Virginia's 
regional haze SIP submittal and as discussed in section V.C.1. (Federal 
and state controls in place by 2018) of this action.
    Virginia received letters from the MANE-VU RPO States of New Jersey 
and New Hampshire in the Spring of 2007, stating that they wish to have 
further consultation with Virginia about visibility impairment to Class 
I areas in those states. MANE-VU met with VISTAS states on August 20, 
2007 in Atlanta, Georgia and presented their ``asks'' which are the 
RPGs for the MANE-VU Class I Areas. As part of its ``asks,'' the MANE-
VU states identified 167 EGU stacks that impact their Class I areas the 
most requested states to implement a 90 percent control efficiency for 
SO2 on those stacks. The MANE-VU states identified 10 EGU 
stacks in Virginia as a part of the 167 EGU stacks. It also requested a 
control strategy to provide a 28 percent reduction in SO2 
emissions from sources other than EGUs that would be equivalent to 
MANE-VU's proposed low sulfur fuel oil strategy. Of the Virginia EGUs 
identified by MANE-VU, 82 percent of those sources have existing 
SO2 controls or will have SO2 controls by 2018 or 
sooner.
    VISTAS modeling showed that no Virginia stack contributes more than 
1 percent or more to the calculated visibility impairment to the 
Brigantine Class I area in contrast to the MANE-VU modeling. Virginia's 
non-EGUs are predicted to emit 57,790 tons of SO2 in 2018. 
MANE-VU requested a 28 percent reduction in these emissions, or 
approximately 16,181 tons. Two EGUs in Virginia not on the MANE-VU 
listing of 167 stacks already have enforceable conditions in place that 
will provide reductions of 16,900 tons of SO2 satisfying the 
non-EGU reductions requested by MANE-VU. VADEQ believes that these 
emissions reductions satisfy MANE-VU's request.
    EPA finds that Virginia has adequately addressed the consultation 
requirements in the RHR and appropriately documented its consultation 
with other states in its SIP submittal. See Appendix J of Virginia's 
October 4, 2010 submittal for state letters and the Commonwealth's 
responses and Appendix D for specific emission inventories.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
    Through the VISTAS RPO, Virginia and the nine other member states 
worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the 
Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support the 
regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. VADEQ also provided a draft 
plan dated October 1, 2007, to the FLMs (and EPA) for review. Appendix 
J of the Virginia regional haze SIP submittal includes the comment 
letters from the FLMs, which indicate that the FLMs appear to be 
generally supportive of the Commonwealth's regional haze SIP, and were 
pleased with the technical information summarized in the regional haze 
SIP narrative. The FLM comments mainly suggested that Virginia insert 
language to further expand and/or clarify certain information. For 
example, the FLMs requested that VADEQ discuss the linkage between the 
LTS and the Commonwealth's NSR/PSD program in the SIP narrative. 
Additionally, the FLMs asked VADEQ to reiterate statements in the 
appendices regarding the conclusions of interstate consultation 
discussions in the SIP narrative. The FLMs also suggested that emission 
inventory data from 2002 in the SIP narrative be put with the 
projection data for 2009 and 2018 to aid the reader with understanding 
the anticipated effects of Virginia's LTS. To address the requirement 
for continuing consultation procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(4), VADEQ made a commitment in the SIP to ongoing 
consultation with the FLMs on regional haze issues throughout 
implementation of its plan, including annual discussions. VADEQ also 
affirms in the SIP that FLM consultation is required for those sources 
subject to the Commonwealth's NSR regulations.

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    As also summarized in section V.D. of this action, consistent with 
40 CFR 51.308(g), VADEQ affirmed its commitment to submitting a 
progress report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years 
following this initial submittal of the Virginia regional haze SIP. The 
report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the 
mandatory Class I areas located within Virginia and in each mandatory 
Class I area located outside Virginia that may be affected by emissions 
from within Virginia. Virginia also offered recommendations for several 
technical improvements that, as funding allows, can support the 
Commonwealth's next LTS. These recommendations are discussed in detail 
in the Virginia submittal in Appendix K. If another state's regional 
haze SIP identifies that Virginia's SIP needs to be supplemented or 
modified, and if, after appropriate consultation Virginia agrees, 
today's action may be revisited, or additional information and/or 
changes will be addressed in the five-year progress report SIP 
revision.

VI. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the 
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to 
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) 
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a 
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative

[[Page 3710]]

burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking 
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's 
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty 
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity 
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation 
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes 
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's 
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and 
information about the content of those documents that are the product 
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not 
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed 
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that 
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public 
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the 
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege 
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents 
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program 
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce 
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less 
stringent than their Federal counterparts * * * . '' The opinion 
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or 
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of 
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and 
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required 
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or 
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that 
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal 
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a 
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, 
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from 
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute 
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since 
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal 
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with 
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and 
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its 
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because 
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law 
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal 
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under 
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to 
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, 
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by 
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

VII. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of 
the revisions to the Virginia SIP submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Virginia on July 17, 2008, March 6, 2009, January 14, 2010, October 4, 
2010, November 19, 2010, and May 6, 2011, as meeting some of the 
applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 
169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308, as described previously in 
this action. The limited disapproval is only in regard to the SIP 
revisions' reliance on CAIR as an alternative to BART for 
SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs and as a part of 
its long-term strategy. EPA has proposed in a separate notice a FIP 
that would correct this deficiency in Virginia's regional haze SIP by 
indicating that the Transport Rule is the alternative to this portion 
of the BART requirement. EPA is also proposing to find that the 
revisions submitted by Virginia meet the applicable visibility related 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) including, but not limited to 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility protection 
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines 
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * * 
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or 
more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act 
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new 
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the CAA, 
preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry 
into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA 
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric 
Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for

[[Page 3711]]

informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that today's proposal does not include a Federal 
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to 
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-existing 
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. 
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 
12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have Federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with 
state and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
Federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, 
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant 
regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive 
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. 
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus 
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs 
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law 
or otherwise impractical. EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to 
this action. Today's limited approval and limited disapproval does not 
require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this Virginia Regional Haze proposed action. In reviewing 
SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state choices, 
based on the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, it 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

     Dated: January 17, 2012.
W. C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-1510 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P