Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 47264-47267 [2013-18705]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
47264
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES—Continued
Agency
Title
Emission performance standards .................
Opacity standards ........................................
Prohibited fuel types .....................................
Impaired air quality criteria ...........................
Curtailment ...................................................
No residential or land clearing burning ........
03/06/93
03/06/93
04/20/91
04/20/91
04/20/91
02/04/12
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
Curtailment ...................................................
Recreational Burning ....................................
Definitions .....................................................
General emission standards ........................
Prohibited fuel types .....................................
Curtailment ...................................................
Exceptions ....................................................
Penalties .......................................................
Sale and installation of uncertified
woodstoves.
Disposal of uncertified woodstoves ..............
03/18/11
03/18/11
05/22/10
05/22/10
05/22/10
05/22/10
05/22/10
05/22/10
05/22/10
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
05/22/10
07/01/13
Ecology
Ecology
Ecology
Ecology
Ecology
ORCAA
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
173–433–100 ................................................
173–433–110 ................................................
173–433–120 ................................................
173–433–140 ................................................
173–433–150 ................................................
6.2.3 (only as it applies to the cities of
Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater).
6.2.6 ..............................................................
6.2.7 ..............................................................
8.1.1 ..............................................................
8.1.2 (b) and (c) ...........................................
8.1.3 ..............................................................
8.1.4 ..............................................................
8.1.5 ..............................................................
8.1.6 ..............................................................
8.1.7 ..............................................................
ORCAA ..............
8.1.8 ..............................................................
VII. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
second 10-year limited maintenance
plan for Thurston County submitted by
Washington State. The state’s submittal
also included a request to approve state
regulatory updates to the original
control measures included in Chapter
173–433 WAC as well as corresponding
local ORCAA regulations. The EPA is
proposing to approve these regulatory
changes as well as corrections to the
EPA’s January 1993 approval because
these changes strengthen the SIP.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
VerDate Mar<15>2010
State or local
effective date
Citation
16:53 Aug 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to the requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. The
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the State, except for
non-trust land within the exterior
boundaries of the Puyallup Indian
Reservation, also known as the 1873
Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe
of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25
U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submitted
provided state and local agencies in
Washington authority over activities on
non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey
Area and the EPA is therefore approving
this SIP on such lands.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, and
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 22, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013–18843 Filed 8–2–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0510; FRL–9841–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to
the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new
or revised National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated,
the CAA requires states to submit a plan
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of such NAAQS. The
plan is required to address basic
program elements, including, but not
limited to regulatory structure,
monitoring, modeling, legal authority,
and adequate resources necessary to
assure attainment and maintenance of
the standards. These elements are
referred to as infrastructure
requirements. The Commonwealth of
Virginia has made a submittal
addressing the infrastructure
requirements for the 2010 nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 4,
2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2013–0510 by one of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0510,
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,
Office of Air Program Planning, Air
Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP30,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted 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–2013–
0510. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Aug 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
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:
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May
30, 2013, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ)
submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy
the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of
the CAA for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
I. Background
EPA first set standards for NO2 in
1971, setting both a primary standard (to
protect health) and a secondary
standard (to protect the public welfare)
at 53 parts per billion (53 ppb), averaged
annually. EPA has reviewed the
standards twice since that time, but
chose not to revise the annual standards
at the conclusion of each review. On
February 9, 2010, EPA established an
additional primary NO2 standard at 100
ppb, averaged over one hour.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
states to submit SIPs to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of a new or revised
NAAQS. Specifically, 110(a)(1) requires
states to submit SIPs meeting the
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within three years following
the promulgation of such NAAQS, or
within such shorter period as EPA may
prescribe, and section 110(a)(2) requires
states to address specific elements for
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47265
monitoring, basic program requirements
and legal authority that are designed to
assure attainment and maintenance of
the newly established or revised
NAAQS.
The contents of a submission may
vary depending upon the facts and
circumstances. In particular, the data
and analytical tools available at the time
the state develops and submits the SIP
for a new or revised NAAQS affects the
content of the submission. The contents
of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the
state’s existing SIP already contains.
States were required to submit such
SIPs for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS to EPA
no later than January 2013.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
On May 30, 2013, VADEQ provided a
SIP revision to satisfy the requirements
of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. This revision
addresses the following infrastructure
elements, which EPA is proposing to
approve: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C)
(for enforcement and regulation of
minor sources and minor
modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility
protection), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions
thereof. EPA is taking separate action on
the portions of section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to
Virginia’s prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program and on
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates to
section 128 (State Boards). This action
does not include any proposed action
on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which
pertains to the nonattainment
requirements of part D, Title I of the
CAA, because this element is not
required to be submitted by the 3-year
submission deadline of CAA section
110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a
separate process.
Also, in accordance with the EME
Homer City decision from the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit, a state is not
required to submit a SIP pursuant to
section 110(a) which addresses section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA has defined
a state’s contribution to nonattainment
or interference with maintenance in
another state. See EME Homer City
Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (DC
Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 2013 U.S.
LEXIS 4801 (2013). Unless the EME
Homer City decision is reversed or
otherwise modified by the Supreme
Court, states such as Virginia are not
required to submit section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has
quantified their obligations under that
section. Virginia’s May 30, 2013
infrastructure SIP submission for the
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
47266
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2010 NO2 NAAQS does not include a
component to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, in this
action, EPA is not proposing to act on
the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of
Virginia’s May 30, 2013 SIP submission
for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. A detailed
summary of EPA’s review and rationale
for approving Virginia’s submittal may
be found in the Technical Support
Document (TSD) for this proposed
rulemaking action, which is available
online at www.regulations.gov, Docket
number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0510.
III. 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
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
that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a
voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the
assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger
to the public health or environment; or
(4) 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Aug 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion
concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 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 PSD,
NSR, or Title V programs 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.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the
following infrastructure elements or
portions thereof of Virginia’s May 30,
2013 SIP revision: Section 110(a)(2)(A),
(B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation
of minor sources and minor
modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility
protection), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J) (relating to consultation,
public notification, and visibility
protection requirements), (K), (L), and
(M). Virginia’s SIP revision provides the
basic program elements specified in
section 110(a)(2) necessary to
implement, maintain, and enforce the
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2010 NO2 NAAQS. This action does not
include any proposed action on section
110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains
to the nonattainment requirements of
part D, Title I of the CAA, since this
element is not required to be submitted
by the 3-year submission deadline of
CAA section 110(a)(1), and will be
addressed in a separate process. EPA is
not taking proposed action on section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, because
this element, or portions thereof, is not
presently required to be submitted by a
state until the EPA has quantified a
state’s obligations under that section.
EPA is taking separate action on the
portions of (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they
relate to Virginia’s PSD program, and on
(E)(ii) as it relates to section 128 (State
Boards). EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, which
satisfies certain infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, does not
have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 19, 2013.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013–18705 Filed 8–2–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–0003; FRL–9842–8]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion
of the Imperial Refining Company
Superfund Site
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing a
Notice of Intent to Delete the Imperial
Refining Co. Superfund Site (Site)
located in Ardmore, Oklahoma, from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comments on this
proposed action. The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Aug 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is
an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and
the State of Oklahoma, through the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality, have determined that all
appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews,
have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.
DATES: Comments must be received by
September 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2000–0003, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: mueller.brian@epa.gov.
• Fax: 214–665–6660.
• Mail: Brian W. Mueller; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6; Superfund Division (6SF–RA);
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; Dallas,
Texas 75202–7167.
• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 6; 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700; Dallas, Texas 75202–
2733; Contact: Brian W. Mueller (214)
665–7167. 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–HQ–SFUND–2000–
0003. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://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 https://
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
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47267
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statue. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in the
hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6; 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700; Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Hours
of operation: Monday through Friday,
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m.
to 4:00 p.m. Contact: Brian W.
Mueller (214) 665–7167.
Ardmore Public Library; 320 E Street
NW.; Ardmore, Oklahoma 73401.
Hours of Operation: Monday through
Thursday 10:00 a.m. until 8:30 p.m.;
Friday through Saturday, 10:00 a.m.
until 4:00 p.m.; Sunday 1:00 p.m.
until 5:00 p.m.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality; 707 N Robinson, 2nd floor,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102.
Hours of operation: Monday through
Friday 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian W. Mueller, Remedial Project
Manager; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6; Superfund Division
(6SF–R); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200;
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, (214) 665–
7167, email: mueller.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ Section of
today’s Federal Register, we are
publishing a direct final Notice of
Deletion of Imperial Refining Co.
Superfund Site without prior Notice of
Intent to Delete because we view this as
a noncontroversial revision and
anticipate no adverse comment. We
have explained our reasons for this
deletion in the preamble to the direct
final Notice of Deletion, and those
reasons are incorporated herein. If we
receive no adverse comment(s) on this
deletion action, we will not take further
action on this Notice of Intent to Delete.
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47264-47267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18705]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0510; FRL-9841-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to the
Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires states to
submit a plan
[[Page 47265]]
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The
plan is required to address basic program elements, including, but not
limited to regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority,
and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance
of the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure
requirements. The Commonwealth of Virginia has made a submittal
addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2010 nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 4,
2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2013-0510 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0510, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division,
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-
2013-0510. 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: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 30, 2013, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a revision to its SIP to
satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS.
I. Background
EPA first set standards for NO2 in 1971, setting both a
primary standard (to protect health) and a secondary standard (to
protect the public welfare) at 53 parts per billion (53 ppb), averaged
annually. EPA has reviewed the standards twice since that time, but
chose not to revise the annual standards at the conclusion of each
review. On February 9, 2010, EPA established an additional primary
NO2 standard at 100 ppb, averaged over one hour.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS. Specifically, 110(a)(1) requires states to submit SIPs
meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three
years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter
period as EPA may prescribe, and section 110(a)(2) requires states to
address specific elements for monitoring, basic program requirements
and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS.
The contents of a submission may vary depending upon the facts and
circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available
at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised
NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP
submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's
existing SIP already contains. States were required to submit such SIPs
for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 2013.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
On May 30, 2013, VADEQ provided a SIP revision to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS. This revision addresses the following
infrastructure elements, which EPA is proposing to approve: Sections
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation of minor sources
and minor modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection),
(D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or
portions thereof. EPA is taking separate action on the portions of
section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to Virginia's
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program and on section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates to section 128 (State Boards). This
action does not include any proposed action on section 110(a)(2)(I) of
the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D,
Title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be
submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1),
and will be addressed in a separate process.
Also, in accordance with the EME Homer City decision from the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a
state is not required to submit a SIP pursuant to section 110(a) which
addresses section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA has defined a state's
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in
another state. See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (DC
Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4801 (2013). Unless the EME
Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme
Court, states such as Virginia are not required to submit section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has quantified their obligations
under that section. Virginia's May 30, 2013 infrastructure SIP
submission for the
[[Page 47266]]
2010 NO2 NAAQS does not include a component to address
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, in this action, EPA is not
proposing to act on the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of
Virginia's May 30, 2013 SIP submission for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS. A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for approving
Virginia's submittal may be found in the Technical Support Document
(TSD) for this proposed rulemaking action, which is available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0510.
III. 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 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 that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) 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
PSD, NSR, or Title V programs 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.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the following infrastructure elements
or portions thereof of Virginia's May 30, 2013 SIP revision: Section
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation of minor sources
and minor modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection),
(D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (relating to
consultation, public notification, and visibility protection
requirements), (K), (L), and (M). Virginia's SIP revision provides the
basic program elements specified in section 110(a)(2) necessary to
implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. This
action does not include any proposed action on section 110(a)(2)(I) of
the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D,
Title I of the CAA, since this element is not required to be submitted
by the 3-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1), and will be
addressed in a separate process. EPA is not taking proposed action on
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, because this element, or
portions thereof, is not presently required to be submitted by a state
until the EPA has quantified a state's obligations under that section.
EPA is taking separate action on the portions of (C), (D)(i)(II), and
(J) as they relate to Virginia's PSD program, and on (E)(ii) as it
relates to section 128 (State Boards). EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
[[Page 47267]]
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, which satisfies certain
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS for the Commonwealth of Virginia, does not
have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 19, 2013.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-18705 Filed 8-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
