Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review; Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5, 10377-10385 [2014-03640]
Download as PDF
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(1) A SAR, or any information that
would reveal the existence of a SAR, to
FinCEN or any Federal, State, or local
law enforcement agency, or any Federal
regulatory authority that examines the
housing government sponsored
enterprise for compliance with the Bank
Secrecy Act; or
(2) The underlying facts, transactions,
and documents upon which a SAR is
based, including but not limited to,
disclosures to another housing
government sponsored enterprise or a
financial institution, or any director,
officer, employee, or agent of a housing
government sponsored enterprise or
financial institution, for the preparation
of a joint SAR; or
(B) The sharing by a housing
government sponsored enterprise, or
any director, officer, employee, or agent
of the housing government sponsored
enterprise, of a SAR, or any information
that would reveal the existence of a
SAR, within the housing government
sponsored enterprise’s corporate
organizational structure for purposes
consistent with Title II of the Bank
Secrecy Act as determined by regulation
or in guidance.
(2) Prohibition on disclosures by
government authorities. A Federal,
State, local, territorial, or tribal
government authority, or any director,
officer, employee, or agent of any of the
foregoing, shall not disclose a SAR, or
any information that would reveal the
existence of a SAR, except as necessary
to fulfill official duties consistent with
Title II of the Bank Secrecy Act. For
purposes of this section, ‘‘official
duties’’ shall not include the disclosure
of a SAR, or any information that would
reveal the existence of a SAR, in
response to a request for disclosure of
non-public information or a request for
use in a private legal proceeding,
including a request pursuant to 31 CFR
1.11.
(e) Limitation on liability. A housing
government sponsored enterprise, and
any director, officer, employee, or agent
of any housing government sponsored
enterprise, that makes a voluntary
disclosure of any possible violation of
law or regulation to a government
agency or makes a disclosure pursuant
to this section or any other authority,
including a disclosure made jointly with
another institution, shall be protected
from liability for any such disclosure, or
for failure to provide notice of such
disclosure to any person identified in
the disclosure, or both, to the full extent
provided by 31 U.S.C. 5318(g)(3).
(f) Compliance. Housing government
sponsored enterprises shall be examined
by FinCEN or its delegate for
compliance with this section. Failure to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Feb 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
satisfy the requirements of this section
may be a violation of the Bank Secrecy
Act and of this chapter.
(g) Applicability date. This section is
effective when an anti-money
laundering program required by
§ 1030.210 of this part is required to be
implemented.
§ 1030.330 Reports relating to currency in
excess of $10,000 received in a trade or
business.
10377
Subpart F—Special Standards of
Diligence; Prohibitions, and Special
Measures for Housing Government
Sponsored Enterprises
§§ 1030.600–1030.670
[Reserved]
Dated: February 20, 2014.
Jennifer Shasky Calvery,
Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network.
[FR Doc. 2014–04125 Filed 2–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4802–02–P
Refer to § 1010.330 of this chapter for
rules regarding the filing of reports
relating to currency in excess of $10,000
received by housing government
sponsored enterprises.
Subpart D—Records Required To Be
Maintained by Housing Government
Sponsored Enterprises
§ 1030.400
General.
Housing government sponsored
enterprises are subject to the
recordkeeping requirements set forth
and cross referenced in this subpart.
Housing government sponsored
enterprises should also refer to subpart
D of part 1010 of this chapter for
recordkeeping requirements contained
in that subpart that apply to housing
government sponsored enterprises.
Subpart E—Special Information
Sharing Procedures To Deter Money
Laundering and Terrorist Activity
§ 1030.500
General.
Housing government sponsored
enterprises are subject to special
information sharing procedures to deter
money laundering and terrorist activity
requirements set forth and cross
referenced in this subpart. Housing
government sponsored enterprises
should also refer to subpart E of part
1010 of this chapter for special
information sharing procedures to deter
money laundering and terrorist activity
contained in that subpart that apply to
housing government sponsored
enterprises.
§ 1030.520 Special information sharing
procedures to deter money laundering and
terrorist activity for housing government
sponsored enterprises.
(a) Refer to § 1010.520 of this chapter.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 1030.530
[Reserved]
§ 1030.540 Voluntary information sharing
among financial institutions.
(a) Refer to § 1010.540 of this chapter.
(b) [Reserved]
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0927; FRL–9906–67–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
and Nonattainment New Source
Review; Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to
the Virginia State Implementation Plan
(SIP), submitted by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ) on August 25, 2011. The
revisions pertaining to Virginia’s
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program are being fully approved.
EPA is granting limited approval to the
revisions pertaining to Virginia’s
nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR) program. In both cases, the
revisions incorporate preconstruction
permitting regulations for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) into the
Virginia SIP. In addition, EPA is
approving these revisions and portions
of other related submissions for the
purpose of determining that Virginia has
met its statutory obligations with
respect to the infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
which relate to Virginia’s PSD
permitting program and are necessary to
implement, maintain, and enforce the
1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and
the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is
approving these revisions in accordance
with the requirements of the CAA. A
previous PSD program approval of
Virginia’s Chapter 80, Article 8
regulations was provided to the
Commonwealth as a ‘‘limited approval’’
for reasons that do not impact the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25FER1.SGM
25FER1
10378
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
approval of the August 25, 2011
submission. A correction related to that
prior limited approved is also included
in this action.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
March 27, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0927. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the electronic docket,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for
public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by
email at talley.david@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background
On August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45523),
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the
Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR,
EPA proposed approval of amendments
to Virginia’s major NSR permitting
regulations under the Virginia
Administrative Code (VAC) to
incorporate requirements for PM2.5.
Additionally, EPA proposed to approve
these revisions and portions of other
related submissions for the purpose of
determining that Virginia has met its
statutory obligations with respect to the
infrastructure requirements of CAA
section 110(a) which relate to Virginia’s
PSD permitting program and are
necessary to implement, maintain, and
enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
and the 2008 lead NAAQS. The formal
SIP revision request was submitted by
Virginia on August 25, 2011.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
Virginia’s August 25, 2011 SIP
submittal included revisions to the
general definitions under Chapter 10 of
9VAC5 (specifically 9VAC5–10–30), as
well as revisions to Articles 8 (PSD) and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Feb 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
9 (nonattainment NSR) under Chapter
80 of 9VAC5. The following regulations
under Article 8 are revised: 9VAC5–80–
1615 (Definitions); 9VAC5–80–1635
(Ambient Air Increments); 9VAC5–80–
1695 (Exemptions); 9VAC5–80–1715
(Source Impact Analysis); and 9VAC5–
80–1765 (Sources Affecting Federal
Class I Areas—Additional
Requirements). Under Article 9, the
regulations at 9VAC5–80–2010
(Definitions) and 9VAC5–80–2120
(Offsets) are amended.
As discussed in the NPR, in light of
litigation EPA proposed to take no
action with regard to the Significant
Impact Level (SIL) regulation at
paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5–80–1715 (See,
77 FR 45523). On January 22, 2013, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Sierra
Club v. EPA (705 F.3d 458, 469), issued
a judgment that, inter alia, vacated and
remanded the provisions at 40 CFR
51.166(k)(2), which were promulgated
as part of the October 20, 2010
‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration
for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentrations
(SMC),’’ (2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule).1 These
provisions were the Federal
counterparts to Virginia’s PM2.5 SIL
regulations at paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5–
80–1715. Additionally, the court
vacated the provisions at section
51.166(i)(5)(i)(c), which were the
Federal counterparts to Virginia’s PM2.5
SMC regulations at paragraph E(1) of
9VAC5–80–1695 (See, Sierra Club v.
EPA, 705 F.3d at 469). EPA proposed
approval of Virginia’s PM2.5 SMC
provisions in our NPR. In light of the
court’s decision, by letter dated
February 13, 2013, Virginia officially
withdrew from the August 25, 2011
submittal the PM2.5 SIL regulation at
paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5–80–1715, and
the portion of paragraph E(1) of 9VAC5–
80–1695 pertaining to the PM2.5 SMC.
Accordingly, EPA is not finalizing
approval of these provisions. Therefore,
EPA’s approval with respect to sections
5–80–1695 and 5–80–1715 is limited to
the remaining revisions which were not
impacted by the court decision.
Subsequent to publication of the NPR,
on January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit, in
Natural Resources Defense Council v.
EPA,2 issued a decision that remanded
the EPA’s 2007 and 2008 rules
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The court’s remand of EPA’s 2008
implementation rule, ‘‘Implementation
of New Source Review (NSR) Program
1 See
2 See
PO 00000
75 FR 64864 (October 12, 2010).
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (referred to herein
as ‘‘the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule’’),3 is
relevant to this final rulemaking. This
rule promulgated NSR requirements for
implementation of PM2.5 in both
nonattainment areas (nonattainment
NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable
areas (PSD). The court found that EPA
erred in implementing the PM2.5
NAAQS pursuant to the general
implementation provisions of subpart 1
of part D of title I of the CAA, rather
than pursuant to the additional
implementation provisions specific to
particulate matter nonattainment areas
in subpart 4. The court ordered the EPA
to ‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to
Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion,’’
(Id. at 437). Although the court declined
to establish a deadline for EPA’s
response to the remand, EPA intends to
promulgate new generally applicable
implementation regulations for the
PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the
requirements of subpart 4. In the
interim, however, states and EPA still
need to proceed with implementation of
the PM2.5 NAAQS in a timely and
effective fashion in order to meet
statutory obligations under the CAA and
to assure the protection of public health
intended by those NAAQS.
As discussed in the NPR, VADEQ’s
August 25, 2011 SIP submittal included
revisions to Virginia’s nonattainment
NSR program consistent with the
provisions promulgated in the 2008
NSR PM2.5 Rule. Specifically, under
Article 9, the state submitted
amendments to the regulations at
9VAC5–80–2010 (Definitions) and
9VAC5–80–2120 (Offsets) for approval
into the SIP, including the PM2.5
significant emission rates (SERs),
regulation of certain PM2.5 precursors
(SO2 and NOX), the regulation of PM10
and PM2.5 condensable emissions, and
the emissions offset requirements. In
light of the D.C. Circuit’s remand of the
2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule and for the
reasons explained below, EPA is not
prepared at this time to grant full
approval to VADEQ’s August 25, 2011
submittal as to these elements.
EPA is in the process of evaluating the
requirements of subpart 4 as they
pertain to nonattainment NSR. In
particular, subpart 4 includes section
189(e) of the CAA, which requires the
control of major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors (and hence under the
court decision, PM2.5 precursors)
‘‘except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM10 levels
which exceed the standard in the area.’’
3 See
E:\FR\FM\25FER1.SGM
73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008).
25FER1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
The evaluation of which precursors
need to be controlled to achieve the
standard in a particular area is typically
conducted in the context of the state’s
preparing and the EPA’s reviewing of an
area’s attainment plan SIP. In this case,
there is only one designated PM2.5
nonattainment area in the State, the
Virginia portion of the Washington, DCMD-VA nonattainment area for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Virginia
submitted an attainment plan for this
area on April 4, 2008.
On January 12, 2009, EPA finalized a
clean data determination for the area,
(74 FR 1146), which suspended the
requirement for the state to submit,
among other things, an attainment plan
SIP for the area. Accordingly, on
January 23, 2012, Virginia withdrew the
attainment plan SIP, and it is no longer
before EPA. As EPA does not have
before it the state’s analysis as to which
precursors need to be controlled in the
area as contained in the attainment plan
SIP, it cannot fully approve as
complying with the CAA a
nonattainment NSR SIP that only
addresses a subset of the scientific PM2.5
precursors recognized by EPA.
On the other hand, while VADEQ’s
submittal may not yet contain all of the
elements necessary to satisfy the CAA
requirements when evaluated under
subpart 4, the revisions represent a
considerable strengthening of Virginia’s
currently approved nonattainment NSR
SIP which does not address PM2.5 at all.
Therefore, EPA is granting limited
approval to the nonattainment NSR
provisions in VADEQ’s August 25, 2011
submittal.
For the reasons explained above, EPA
is not evaluating at this time whether
Virginia’s submittal will require
additional revisions to satisfy the
subpart 4 requirements. Once EPA repromulgates the Federal PM2.5
regulations with respect to
nonattainment NSR permitting in
response to the court’s remand, EPA
will consider whether a limited
disapproval should also be finalized.
Moreover, Virginia has submitted a
request to redesignate the
nonattainment area, which, if granted,
would absolve the State of any further
obligation to comply with the subpart 4
requirements for nonattainment NSR as
to this area. Alternatively, VADEQ can
obtain full approval by, if necessary,
revising its regulations accordingly to
address EPA’s revised regulations and
submitting them to EPA as a formal SIP
revision.
As previously discussed, VADEQ’s
August 25, 2011 SIP submittal also
includes revisions to Virginia’s PSD
program consistent with the provisions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Feb 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5
Rule. Specifically, under Article 8, the
following regulations are revised (with
the previously noted exceptions):
9VAC5–80–1615 (Definitions); 9VAC5–
80–1635 (Ambient Air Increments);
9VAC5–80–1695 (Exemptions); 9VAC5–
80–1715 (Source Impact Analysis); and,
9VAC5–80–1765 (Sources Affecting
Federal Class I Areas—Additional
Requirements). As the requirements of
subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment
areas, it is EPA’s position that the
portions of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule
that address requirements for PM2.5
attainment and unclassifiable areas are
not affected by the D.C. Circuit’s
opinion in NRDC v. EPA. Moreover,
EPA does not anticipate the need to
revise any PSD requirements
promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5
Rule in order to comply with the court’s
decision. Accordingly, EPA’s approval
of Virginia’s SIP as to the PSD
requirements promulgated by the 2008
NSR PM2.5 Rule does not conflict with
the court’s opinion.
Similarly, in the NPR, EPA also
proposed to approve portions of related
infrastructure (or CAA Section
110(a)(2)) SIP submissions, for the
purpose of determining that Virginia has
met its statutory obligations with
respect to the PSD-related infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and
the 2008 lead NAAQS. Virginia
submitted the related infrastructure SIP
revisions on the following dates:
November 13, 2007, December 13, 2007,
July 10, 2008, September 2, 2008, April
1, 2011, and March 9, 2012. For the
reasons explained above, it is also EPA’s
position that EPA’s approval of the
portions of the above identified
Virginia’s infrastructure SIPs which
relate to compliance with the PSD
requirements set forth in Sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) does not
conflict with the court’s remand of the
2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule.4
In addition to the proposed approval
of the PSD portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA stated in the NPR
that: ‘‘Because Virginia has met its
4 The court’s decision with respect to the
nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by
the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule also does not affect the
EPA’s proposed approval of the present
infrastructure action. The EPA interprets the Act to
exclude nonattainment area requirements,
including requirements associated with a
nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure
SIP submissions due 3 years after adoption or
revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are
typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or
attainment plan elements, which would be due by
the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2
through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years
following designations for some elements.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10379
obligations with respect to the visibility
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by virtue of its
regional haze SIP, which EPA took final
action to approve on March 23, 2012 (77
FR 16397), EPA is also proposing to
approve the portions of Virginia’s
previous infrastructure submittals
related to the visibility requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008
lead NAAQS.’’
As discussed in Section III, below,
EPA has already taken separate and
final action to approve the portions of
these identified SIP submittals which
relate to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
visibility requirements for the 1997
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008
lead NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is taking
no action on the proposed approval of
the visibility requirements for these
identified SIP submittals.5 EPA is only
taking final action to approve the
portions of the above identified
infrastructure SIPs which relate to
Virginia’s PSD program.
Other specific requirements of
Virginia’s August 25, 2011 SIP submittal
and the rationale for EPA’s proposed
action are explained in the NPR and
will not be restated here.
III. EPA’s Response to Comments
Received on the Proposed Action
EPA received two sets of comments
on the August 1, 2012 NPR. A full set
of these comments is provided in the
docket for today’s final action. A
summary of the comments and EPA’s
responses are provided herein.
Comment: The first commenter
asserted simply that the Federal
government should not be involved in
state affairs.
EPA Response: As Congress has
recognized, the regulation of air
pollution in Virginia is not a ‘‘state
affair’’ for which Virginia bears sole
responsibility. The CAA establishes a
partnership between state and Federal
entities for the protection and
improvement of the nation’s air quality.
Under CAA section 109, EPA is required
to establish National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the
protection of public health and welfare.
Subsequent to the promulgation (or
revision) of a NAAQS, states are
required by CAA section 110 to adopt
and submit to EPA for approval, a SIP
which provides for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS. Virginia’s August 25, 2011 SIP
5 EPA also notes there was an inadvertent,
incorrect citation to the Virginia regional haze SIP
approval in the NPR. The correct citation to EPA’s
approval of the Virginia regional haze SIP is 77 FR
35287 (June 13, 2012) (effective July 13, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\25FER1.SGM
25FER1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10380
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
submittal met that requirement. In
addition, section 110(a)(2)(C)
specifically requires that state plans
include a PSD and nonattainment NSR
permit program as required in parts C
and D of Title I of the Clean Air Act. The
action being finalized today consistent
with EPA’s responsibilities under CAA
section 110.
A second commenter submitted two
substantive comments. First, the
commenter raised concerns regarding
EPA’s determination that Virginia has
met its obligations with respect to the
visibility requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by virtue of its
regional haze SIP. Second, the
commenter raised several concerns
about the legality of SILs and SMCs, as
well as Virginia’s adoption of them.
Comment 1: The commenter claimed
that Virginia’s regional haze SIP is
insufficient to ensure compliance with
visibility requirements under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The
commenter stated that Virginia’s
regional haze SIP only received limited
approval due to its reliance on the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for best
available retrofit technology (BART) for
electric generating units. The
commenter alleged that EPA cannot rely
on Virginia’s regional haze SIP for
satisfying section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(ii)
because it did not receive full approval,
because CAIR has been remanded by the
D.C. Circuit, and because EPA provided
no explanation for how the regional
haze SIP meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as they relate
to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 lead
NAAQS. The commenter stated that
EPA should either revoke its approval of
the Virginia regional haze SIP or, at a
minimum, provide an explanation for
how the regional haze SIP ensures
visibility will be protected for the
aforementioned NAAQS.
Response 1: In the NPR for this
rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve
the following infrastructure SIP
submittals as meeting the infrastructure
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection):
The November 13, 2007 Virginia
submittal for the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS; the December 13, 2007
Virginia submittal for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS; the July 10, 2008 and
September 2, 2008 Virginia submittals
for the 1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS; the April
1, 2011 Virginia submittal for the 2006
p.m.2.5 NAAQS; and, the March 9, 2012
Virginia SIP submittal for the 2008 lead
NAAQS. The August 2012 NPR was not
the first or the most recent proposed
rulemaking issued by EPA relating to
Virginia’s compliance with the visibility
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Feb 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
requirements set forth in Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
On June 13, 2012, EPA issued a final
rule granting limited approval to the
Virginia regional haze SIP (See, 77 FR
35287). In that final rulemaking action,
EPA also approved Virginia’s regional
haze SIP as satisfying the infrastructure
requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J), as they relate
to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Subsequently, on September 24, 2013,
when acting upon Virginia’s
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 lead
NAAQS, EPA approved that SIP as
meeting the infrastructure requirements
of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J).
(See, 78 FR 58462 (Sept. 24, 2013)).
Most recently, EPA has proposed to
approve Virginia’s infrastructure SIPs
for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2
NAAQS as meeting the infrastructure
requirements in sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J) (See, 78 FR
39651 (July 2, 2013) (2008 ozone
NAAQS) and 78 FR 47264 (August 5,
2013) (2010 NO2 NAAQS)).
Therefore, as part of the August 2012
NPR for this rulemaking, EPA
inadvertently proposed to approve
Virginia’s previously submitted
infrastructure SIPs as meeting the
infrastructure requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Since final action had
been taken for this requirement during
June 2012, further action was not
required. As to EPA’s approval of
Virginia’s compliance with the 110(a)(2)
requirements for visibility (set forth in
sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J)) for the
2008 lead NAAQS, subsequent to the
August 2012 NPR, EPA issued a final
rulemaking on such requirements on
September 24, 2013. Because EPA has
already taken separate proposed and
final rulemaking actions to approve
these elements of the Virginia SIP, EPA
is taking no further action on its
proposed approval of the visibility
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as they relate to the
aforementioned NAAQS.6 Additionally,
EPA received and responded to similar
comments as part of some or all of these
previous rulemakings. Therefore, EPA is
not responding to the comment that
Virginia’s regional haze SIP is
insufficient to ensure compliance with
visibility requirements under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), as we have
6 EPA also notes there was an inadvertent,
incorrect citation to its approval of the Virginia
regional haze SIP in the NPR. The correct citation
to EPA’s approval of the Virginia regional haze SIP
is 77 FR 35287 (June 13, 2012) (effective July 13,
2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
already responded to similar comments
in our other actions (See, 77 FR 35287;
78 FR 34970; 78 FR 39651; and 78 FR
47263). As a result, EPA sees no need
for further action or response as part of
this final rulemaking.
Comment 2: The same commenter
argued that ‘‘Virginia’s regulations
establishing SILs and SMCs are illegal
under the CAA and should be
disapproved by EPA’’ (See, Sierra Club
Comments at 4). Here the commenter
took issue with both EPA’s establishing
SILs and SMCs generally, and with the
PM2.5 SILs proposed by Virginia
specifically. First, citing to the litigation
in Sierra Club v. EPA (D.C. Circuit, No.
10–1413), the commenter asserts that
EPA lacks the authority to establish SILs
and SMCs because they improperly
allow sources to avoid otherwise
applicable CAA requirements. The
commenter asserted that, therefore, EPA
should disapprove those portions of
Virginia’s SIP submittal pertaining to
the PM2.5 SILs and SMCs, rather than
approving the SMCs and taking no
action on the SILs, as proposed.
Secondly, the commenter asserted
that the specific SILs at 9VAC5–80–
1715A and B should be disapproved
because they do not provide VADEQ
with sufficient discretion to require a
cumulative impact analysis regardless of
whether a source’s impact is below the
SIL. In addition, the commenter asserts
that the SIL values in paragraphs A(2)
and B(1) of section 5–80–1715 are set at
different levels and could lead to
confusion. Moreover, the commenter
asserted that the SIL values in paragraph
5–80–1715B(1) are not sufficiently
protective of Class I areas because,
unlike the SIL values in paragraph A,
paragraph B does not distinguish
different SIL values based on area
classifications. Finally, the commenter
asserts that the thresholds in paragraph
5–80–1715B(1) are improperly
incorporated into Virginia’s SIP because
they have as their basis Appendix S of
40 CFR part 51, which applies in
situations where EPA has not approved
a state’s preconstruction review
program.
EPA Response 2: As previously
discussed, in light of the D.C. Circuit’s
vacatur of 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and
(i)(5)(i)(c), Virginia has officially
withdrawn the corresponding state rules
with which the commenter takes issue
from the August 25, 2011 SIP submittal.
Thus, there is no need to further
consider the commenter’s assertion that
EPA should disapprove those provisions
in this rulemaking because Virginia no
longer asks that EPA consider them for
approval as part of its SIP.
E:\FR\FM\25FER1.SGM
25FER1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
As to any apparent conflict between
the two SIL provisions in Virginia’s SIP
submission, paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5–
80–1715 has been withdrawn and thus
the commenter’s concern regarding any
potential for confusion between the two
provisions is addressed by withdrawal
of one provision from the SIP
submission.
As to the SILs in paragraph B(1), the
commenter is incorrect in the claim that
these SIL values were only intended to
apply in states without an EPAapproved PSD program. While it is true
that those SIL values are published in
Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51, they are
also published in section 51.165(b)(2).
Section 51.165(b) implements section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA and applies to
sources or modifications locating in
attainment or unclassifiable areas that
would cause or contribute to a violation
of any NAAQS in any area. This is the
basis for their inclusion in Virginia’s
SIP. These SILs establish the threshold
at or above which a new major
stationary source or major modification
will be considered to cause or
contribute to a violation of an ambient
air quality standard, and thus subject to
the requirements in 40 CFR 51.165(b).
EPA has recognized that the values in
section 51.165(b)(2) may also be used in
the PSD program to support the
demonstration required by 40 CFR
51.165(k)(1) and section 165(a)(3) of the
CAA that proposed construction will
not cause or contribute to a violation of
the NAAQS. However, contrary to the
commenter’s assertion, the Federal
regulations set forth at section 51.165(b)
do not impede a permitting authority’s
discretion to require a cumulative
impact analysis to make the showing
required by section 51.166(k)(1) and
section 165(a)(3) of the CAA where the
source’s impact is below a SIL value in
section 51.165(b). Similarly, the
corresponding state regulation at
9VAC5–80–1715B(1) does not impede
the state’s permitting authority
discretion. Both provisions address the
threshold above which a source will be
considered to cause or contribute to a
NAAQS violation. However, the
provisions do not preclude a
determination that a source may be
considered to cause and contribute to a
NAAQS violation even when the impact
is below a SIL value set forth in 40 CFR
51.165(b)(2) which is utilized by the
permitting authority. In fact, the court in
Sierra Club v. EPA (705 F.3d 458, 469),
declined to vacate the PM2.5 SIL value
at section 51.165(b)(2) because the court
explicitly found that, unlike section
51.166(k)(2), this provision does not
improperly restrict permitting
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Feb 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
authorities’ discretion (See 705 F.3d at
465–66). There is nothing in section
9VAC5–80–1715B(1) that would
preclude VADEQ from imposing
additional requirements on any sources
necessary to show that a source does not
cause or contribute to a NAAQS
violation, including those sources
impacting Class I areas. Therefore,
except for the exceptions noted, EPA is
finalizing the proposal to grant approval
to Virginia’s August 25, 2011 submittal.
IV. 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 § 10.1–1198,
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10381
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 and nonattainment NSR 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.
V. Final Action
EPA is approving Virginia’s August
25, 2011 submittal as a revision to the
Virginia SIP, with the exception of
paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5–80–1715, and
the portion of paragraph E(1) of 9VAC5–
80–1695 pertaining to PM2.5 which were
withdrawn by Virginia on February 13,
2013. EPA is finalizing a limited
approval of the amendments to the
nonattainment NSR regulations set forth
at 9VAC5–80–2010 (Definitions) and
9VAC5–80–2120 (Offsets). EPA is also
approving the August 25, 2011 SIP
submittal and the relevant portions of
the above identified infrastructure SIP
submittals which relate to the PSD
requirements set forth in CAA sections
E:\FR\FM\25FER1.SGM
25FER1
10382
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the
1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 lead
NAAQS. EPA is also approving the
relevant portion of Virginia’s
infrastructure submittal relating to the
PSD permit program pursuant to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997
ozone NAAQS. As previously
discussed, EPA is not taking final action
on its proposal to approve the portions
of the Virginia infrastructure SIP
submittals (which were identified in the
NPR and are identified above) related to
the visibility requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone,
1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 lead
NAAQS, because a final rulemaking
action has previously been taken.
Additionally, on December 20, 2012
(77 FR 75380), EPA approved revisions
to Articles 8 and 9 of 9VAC5, chapter
80. Neither that action nor the current
action removes the pre-existing limited
approval status of Virginia’s PSD and
nonattainment programs (See, Section
III: General Information Pertaining to
SIP Submittals from the Commonwealth
of Virginia, 77 FR 75380–81, and
Section IV, herein). However, the
December 20, 2012 revisions to the table
in paragraph 52.2420(c) inadvertently
omitted reference to the limited
approval status. In the interest of clarity,
EPA is correcting that omission in this
action. EPA is also adding a citation for
the revised 9VAC5–80–1935 to the table
in paragraph 52.2420(c). This revision
was discussed in both the proposed and
final rulemaking actions, but was
inadvertently omitted from the table
itself.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Feb 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by April 28, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action
pertaining to Virginia’s PSD and
nonattainment NSR programs may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: January 28, 2014.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR
part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart VV—Virginia
2. In § 52.2420:
a. The table in paragraph (c) is
amended by revising the entries for
Sections 5–10–30, 5–80–1615, 5–80–
1625, 5–80–1635, 5–80–1695, 5–80–
1715, 5–80–1765, 5–80–1915, 5–80–
1925, 5–80–1935, 5–80–1945, 5–80–
1955, 5–80–1965, 5–80–2010, 5–80–
2020, 5–80–2120, 5–80–2140, 5–80–
2195, 5–80–2200, 5–80–2210, 5–80–
2220, 5–80–2230, and 5–80–2240.
■ b. The table in paragraph (e) is
amended by revising the entries for
section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS, section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, and adding section
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2008 Lead NAAQS immediately
following the previous entries.
The amendments read as follows:
■
■
E:\FR\FM\25FER1.SGM
25FER1
10383
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
§ 52.2420
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
*
EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES
State citation
*
9VAC5, Chapter 10 ......
*
5–10–30 ........................
*
9VAC5, Chapter 80 ......
*
Article 8 .........................
State effective
date
Title/subject
*
EPA approval date
*
*
*
Abbreviations ...............
*
Explanation [former SIP citation]
*
*
General Definitions [Part I]
8/17/11
*
*
*
2/25/14 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
*
*
*
*
*
*
Revised.
*
*
Permits for Stationary Sources [Part VIII]
*
*
*
*
*
*
Permits—Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas
*
5–80–1615 ....................
*
*
Definitions ....................
8/17/11
5–80–1625 ....................
5–80–1635 ....................
General ........................
Ambient Air Increments
7/23/09
8/17/11
*
5–80–1695 ....................
*
*
Exemptions ..................
8/17/11
*
*
2/25/14 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
*
*
Revised. The portion of paragraph E(1) that relates to PM2.5 is not in the SIP. Limited approval remains in effect.
*
5–80–1715 (Except
paragraph A(2)).
*
*
Source impact analysis
8/17/11
*
*
2/25/14 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
*
*
Revised. Paragraph A(2) is not in the SIP. Limited approval remains in effect.
*
5–80–1765 ....................
*
*
Sources affecting Federal class I areas—
additional requirements.
8/17/11
*
*
2/25/14 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
*
*
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
*
5–80–1915 ....................
*
*
Actions to combine permit terms and conditions.
Actions to change permits.
Administrative permit
amendments.
Minor permit amendments.
Significant amendment
procedures.
Reopening for cause ....
7/23/09
*
*
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
*
New. Limited approval.
7/23/09
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
7/23/09
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
7/23/09
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
7/23/09
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
7/23/09
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
5–80–1925 ....................
5–80–1935 ....................
5–80–1945 ....................
5–80–1955 ....................
5–80–1965 ....................
*
Article 9 .........................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Permits—Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone Transport
Region
*
5–80–2010 ....................
*
*
Definitions ....................
8/17/11
5–80–2020 ....................
General ........................
7/23/09
*
5–80–2120 ....................
*
*
Offsets ..........................
8/17/11
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
2/25/14 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
2/25/14 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
16:07 Feb 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
*
*
2/25/14 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
*
*
2/25/14 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Revised. Limited approval of 9/1/06 and 8/17/11
amendments.
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
*
*
Revised. Limited approval of 9/1/06 and 8/17/11
amendments.
E:\FR\FM\25FER1.SGM
25FER1
10384
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES—Continued
State effective
date
State citation
Title/subject
*
5–80–2140 ....................
*
*
Exemptions ..................
*
5–80–2195 ....................
*
*
Actions to combine permit terms and conditions.
Actions to change permits.
Administrative permit
amendments.
Minor permit amendments.
Significant amendment
procedures.
Reopening for cause ....
5–80–2200 ....................
5–80–2210 ....................
5–80–2220 ....................
5–80–2230 ....................
5–80–2240 ....................
*
Explanation [former SIP citation]
7/23/09
*
*
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
*
*
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
7/23/09
*
*
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
*
New. Limited approval.
7/23/09
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
7/23/09
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
7/23/09
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
7/23/09
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
7/23/09
12/20/12, 77 FR 75380
Revised. Limited approval remains in effect.
*
*
*
*
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
16:07 Feb 24, 2014
EPA
approval date
*
Statewide ...............
*
12/10/07, 12/
13/07, 6/8/10,
6/9/10
*
10/11/11; 76 FR
62635.
11/13/07, 12/
13/07, 8/25/11
Statewide ...............
7/10/08, 9/2/
08, 6/8/10, 6/
9/10, 4/1/08
2/25/14 [Insert Federal Register
page number
where the document begins].
10/11/11; 76 FR
62635.
11/13/07, 7/10/
08, 9/2/08, 8/
25/11
Statewide ...............
8/30/10, 4/1/11
4/1/11, 8/25/11
Statewide ...............
3/9/12
8/25/11
*
*
*
(e) * * *
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
VerDate Mar<15>2010
State
submittal
date
................................
*
Applicable
geographic
area
................................
*
*
................................
*
*
................................
*
*
EPA approval date
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2/25/14 [Insert Federal Register
page number
where the document begins].
10/11/11; 76 FR
62635.
2/25/14 [Insert Federal Register
page number
where the document begins].
9/24/13, 78 FR
58462.
2/25/14 [Insert Federal Register
page number
where the document begins].
E:\FR\FM\25FER1.SGM
Additional
explanation
*
*
This action addresses the following
CAA elements or portions thereof:
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
This action addresses the PSD related
elements of the following CAA requirements: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (II).
This action addresses the following
CAA elements or portions thereof:
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
This action addresses the PSD related
elements of the following CAA requirements: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II),
and (J).
This action addresses the following
CAA elements or portions thereof:
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
This action addresses the PSD related
elements of the following CAA requirements: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II),
and (J).
This action addresses the following
CAA elements or portions thereof:
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation of minor
sources), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II) (for the
visibility protection portion), (D)(ii),
(E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M).
This action addresses the PSD related
elements of the following CAA requirements: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II),
and (J).
25FER1
10385
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Applicable
geographic
area
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0414, EPA–R05–
OAR–2013–0424, EPA–R05–OAR–2013–
0425, EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0432; FRL–
9906–50–Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana;
Allen, Greene, Vanderburgh, Warrick,
and Vigo Counties; 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan Revision to
Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
Under the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving requests by
Indiana to revise the 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance air quality state
implementation plan (SIP) for Allen,
Greene, Vanderburgh, Warrick, and Vigo
Counties to replace onroad emissions
inventories and motor vehicle emissions
budgets (budgets) with inventories and
budgets developed using EPA’s Motor
Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES)
emissions model. Indiana submitted the
SIP revision requests for Allen, Vigo,
Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties on
July 2, 2013, and submitted the SIP
revision request for Greene County on
July 8, 2013.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective April 28, 2014, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by March
27, 2014. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05–
OAR–2013–0414 (Vanderburgh and
Warrick Counties), EPA–R05–OAR–
2013–0424 (Allen County), EPA–R05–
OAR–2013–0425 (Greene County), EPA–
R05–OAR–2013–0432 (Vigo County), by
one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
16:07 Feb 24, 2014
EPA
approval date
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–03640 Filed 2–24–14; 8:45 am]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
State
submittal
date
Jkt 232001
2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2450.
4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley,
Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05–OAR–2013–
0414, EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0424, EPA–
R05–OAR–2013–0425, EPA–R05–OAR–
2013–0432. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Additional
explanation
*
*
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the 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 statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Anthony
Maietta, Environmental Protection
Specialist, at (312) 353–8777 before
visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777,
maietta.anthony@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is EPA approving?
II. What is the background for this action?
a. SIP Budgets and Transportation
Conformity.
b. Prior Approval of Budgets.
c. The MOVES Emissions Model.
d. Submission of New Budgets Based on
MOVES2010a.
III. What are the criteria for approval?
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s
submittals?
a. The Revised Inventories.
b. Approvability of the MOVES2010abased Budgets.
c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-based
Budgets.
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.
I. What is EPA approving?
EPA is approving new MOVES2010abased onroad emissions inventories and
budgets for the Allen, Greene,
Vanderburgh, Warrick, and Vigo
Counties 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance areas that will replace
E:\FR\FM\25FER1.SGM
25FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10377-10385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03640]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0927; FRL-9906-67-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New
Source Review; Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on August 25,
2011. The revisions pertaining to Virginia's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program are being fully approved. EPA is granting
limited approval to the revisions pertaining to Virginia's
nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) program. In both cases, the
revisions incorporate preconstruction permitting regulations for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) into the Virginia SIP. In
addition, EPA is approving these revisions and portions of other
related submissions for the purpose of determining that Virginia has
met its statutory obligations with respect to the infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) which relate to Virginia's PSD
permitting program and are necessary to implement, maintain, and
enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the
2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with
the requirements of the CAA. A previous PSD program approval of
Virginia's Chapter 80, Article 8 regulations was provided to the
Commonwealth as a ``limited approval'' for reasons that do not impact
the
[[Page 10378]]
approval of the August 25, 2011 submission. A correction related to
that prior limited approved is also included in this action.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 27, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0927. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or by
email at talley.david@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45523), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR, EPA
proposed approval of amendments to Virginia's major NSR permitting
regulations under the Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) to incorporate
requirements for PM2.5. Additionally, EPA proposed to
approve these revisions and portions of other related submissions for
the purpose of determining that Virginia has met its statutory
obligations with respect to the infrastructure requirements of CAA
section 110(a) which relate to Virginia's PSD permitting program and
are necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the
2008 lead NAAQS. The formal SIP revision request was submitted by
Virginia on August 25, 2011.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
Virginia's August 25, 2011 SIP submittal included revisions to the
general definitions under Chapter 10 of 9VAC5 (specifically 9VAC5-10-
30), as well as revisions to Articles 8 (PSD) and 9 (nonattainment NSR)
under Chapter 80 of 9VAC5. The following regulations under Article 8
are revised: 9VAC5-80-1615 (Definitions); 9VAC5-80-1635 (Ambient Air
Increments); 9VAC5-80-1695 (Exemptions); 9VAC5-80-1715 (Source Impact
Analysis); and 9VAC5-80-1765 (Sources Affecting Federal Class I Areas--
Additional Requirements). Under Article 9, the regulations at 9VAC5-80-
2010 (Definitions) and 9VAC5-80-2120 (Offsets) are amended.
As discussed in the NPR, in light of litigation EPA proposed to
take no action with regard to the Significant Impact Level (SIL)
regulation at paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5-80-1715 (See, 77 FR 45523). On
January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Sierra Club v. EPA (705 F.3d 458,
469), issued a judgment that, inter alia, vacated and remanded the
provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2), which were promulgated as part of
the October 20, 2010 ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentrations (SMC),'' (2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule).\1\ These
provisions were the Federal counterparts to Virginia's PM2.5
SIL regulations at paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5-80-1715. Additionally, the
court vacated the provisions at section 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c), which were
the Federal counterparts to Virginia's PM2.5 SMC regulations
at paragraph E(1) of 9VAC5-80-1695 (See, Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d
at 469). EPA proposed approval of Virginia's PM2.5 SMC
provisions in our NPR. In light of the court's decision, by letter
dated February 13, 2013, Virginia officially withdrew from the August
25, 2011 submittal the PM2.5 SIL regulation at paragraph
A(2) of 9VAC5-80-1715, and the portion of paragraph E(1) of 9VAC5-80-
1695 pertaining to the PM2.5 SMC. Accordingly, EPA is not
finalizing approval of these provisions. Therefore, EPA's approval with
respect to sections 5-80-1695 and 5-80-1715 is limited to the remaining
revisions which were not impacted by the court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 75 FR 64864 (October 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to publication of the NPR, on January 4, 2013, the D.C.
Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,\2\ issued a
decision that remanded the EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The court's remand of EPA's 2008
implementation rule, ``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR)
Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)'' (referred to herein as ``the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule''),\3\ is relevant to this final rulemaking. This
rule promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of
PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and
attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). The court found that EPA erred
in implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general
implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA,
rather than pursuant to the additional implementation provisions
specific to particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4. The
court ordered the EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart
4 consistent with this opinion,'' (Id. at 437). Although the court
declined to establish a deadline for EPA's response to the remand, EPA
intends to promulgate new generally applicable implementation
regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the
requirements of subpart 4. In the interim, however, states and EPA
still need to proceed with implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS
in a timely and effective fashion in order to meet statutory
obligations under the CAA and to assure the protection of public health
intended by those NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
\3\ See 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the NPR, VADEQ's August 25, 2011 SIP submittal
included revisions to Virginia's nonattainment NSR program consistent
with the provisions promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule.
Specifically, under Article 9, the state submitted amendments to the
regulations at 9VAC5-80-2010 (Definitions) and 9VAC5-80-2120 (Offsets)
for approval into the SIP, including the PM2.5 significant
emission rates (SERs), regulation of certain PM2.5
precursors (SO2 and NOX), the regulation of
PM10 and PM2.5 condensable emissions, and the
emissions offset requirements. In light of the D.C. Circuit's remand of
the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule and for the reasons explained below,
EPA is not prepared at this time to grant full approval to VADEQ's
August 25, 2011 submittal as to these elements.
EPA is in the process of evaluating the requirements of subpart 4
as they pertain to nonattainment NSR. In particular, subpart 4 includes
section 189(e) of the CAA, which requires the control of major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors (and hence under the
court decision, PM2.5 precursors) ``except where the
Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in
the area.''
[[Page 10379]]
The evaluation of which precursors need to be controlled to achieve the
standard in a particular area is typically conducted in the context of
the state's preparing and the EPA's reviewing of an area's attainment
plan SIP. In this case, there is only one designated PM2.5
nonattainment area in the State, the Virginia portion of the
Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. Virginia submitted an attainment plan for this
area on April 4, 2008.
On January 12, 2009, EPA finalized a clean data determination for
the area, (74 FR 1146), which suspended the requirement for the state
to submit, among other things, an attainment plan SIP for the area.
Accordingly, on January 23, 2012, Virginia withdrew the attainment plan
SIP, and it is no longer before EPA. As EPA does not have before it the
state's analysis as to which precursors need to be controlled in the
area as contained in the attainment plan SIP, it cannot fully approve
as complying with the CAA a nonattainment NSR SIP that only addresses a
subset of the scientific PM2.5 precursors recognized by EPA.
On the other hand, while VADEQ's submittal may not yet contain all
of the elements necessary to satisfy the CAA requirements when
evaluated under subpart 4, the revisions represent a considerable
strengthening of Virginia's currently approved nonattainment NSR SIP
which does not address PM2.5 at all. Therefore, EPA is
granting limited approval to the nonattainment NSR provisions in
VADEQ's August 25, 2011 submittal.
For the reasons explained above, EPA is not evaluating at this time
whether Virginia's submittal will require additional revisions to
satisfy the subpart 4 requirements. Once EPA re-promulgates the Federal
PM2.5 regulations with respect to nonattainment NSR
permitting in response to the court's remand, EPA will consider whether
a limited disapproval should also be finalized. Moreover, Virginia has
submitted a request to redesignate the nonattainment area, which, if
granted, would absolve the State of any further obligation to comply
with the subpart 4 requirements for nonattainment NSR as to this area.
Alternatively, VADEQ can obtain full approval by, if necessary,
revising its regulations accordingly to address EPA's revised
regulations and submitting them to EPA as a formal SIP revision.
As previously discussed, VADEQ's August 25, 2011 SIP submittal also
includes revisions to Virginia's PSD program consistent with the
provisions promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule.
Specifically, under Article 8, the following regulations are revised
(with the previously noted exceptions): 9VAC5-80-1615 (Definitions);
9VAC5-80-1635 (Ambient Air Increments); 9VAC5-80-1695 (Exemptions);
9VAC5-80-1715 (Source Impact Analysis); and, 9VAC5-80-1765 (Sources
Affecting Federal Class I Areas--Additional Requirements). As the
requirements of subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, it is
EPA's position that the portions of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule
that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and
unclassifiable areas are not affected by the D.C. Circuit's opinion in
NRDC v. EPA. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any
PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule in
order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's approval
of Virginia's SIP as to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008
NSR PM2.5 Rule does not conflict with the court's opinion.
Similarly, in the NPR, EPA also proposed to approve portions of
related infrastructure (or CAA Section 110(a)(2)) SIP submissions, for
the purpose of determining that Virginia has met its statutory
obligations with respect to the PSD-related infrastructure requirements
of CAA section 110(a) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Virginia submitted the related infrastructure SIP revisions on the
following dates: November 13, 2007, December 13, 2007, July 10, 2008,
September 2, 2008, April 1, 2011, and March 9, 2012. For the reasons
explained above, it is also EPA's position that EPA's approval of the
portions of the above identified Virginia's infrastructure SIPs which
relate to compliance with the PSD requirements set forth in Sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) does not conflict with the court's
remand of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR
requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule also
does not affect the EPA's proposed approval of the present
infrastructure action. The EPA interprets the Act to exclude
nonattainment area requirements, including requirements associated
with a nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure SIP
submissions due 3 years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS.
Instead, these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment
SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by the dates
statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D,
extending as far as 10 years following designations for some
elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the proposed approval of the PSD portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA stated in the NPR that: ``Because Virginia has
met its obligations with respect to the visibility requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by virtue of its regional haze SIP, which
EPA took final action to approve on March 23, 2012 (77 FR 16397), EPA
is also proposing to approve the portions of Virginia's previous
infrastructure submittals related to the visibility requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5,
2006 PM2.5, and 2008 lead NAAQS.''
As discussed in Section III, below, EPA has already taken separate
and final action to approve the portions of these identified SIP
submittals which relate to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility
requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, and 2008 lead NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is taking no
action on the proposed approval of the visibility requirements for
these identified SIP submittals.\5\ EPA is only taking final action to
approve the portions of the above identified infrastructure SIPs which
relate to Virginia's PSD program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA also notes there was an inadvertent, incorrect citation
to the Virginia regional haze SIP approval in the NPR. The correct
citation to EPA's approval of the Virginia regional haze SIP is 77
FR 35287 (June 13, 2012) (effective July 13, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other specific requirements of Virginia's August 25, 2011 SIP
submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in
the NPR and will not be restated here.
III. EPA's Response to Comments Received on the Proposed Action
EPA received two sets of comments on the August 1, 2012 NPR. A full
set of these comments is provided in the docket for today's final
action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided
herein.
Comment: The first commenter asserted simply that the Federal
government should not be involved in state affairs.
EPA Response: As Congress has recognized, the regulation of air
pollution in Virginia is not a ``state affair'' for which Virginia
bears sole responsibility. The CAA establishes a partnership between
state and Federal entities for the protection and improvement of the
nation's air quality. Under CAA section 109, EPA is required to
establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the
protection of public health and welfare. Subsequent to the promulgation
(or revision) of a NAAQS, states are required by CAA section 110 to
adopt and submit to EPA for approval, a SIP which provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Virginia's
August 25, 2011 SIP
[[Page 10380]]
submittal met that requirement. In addition, section 110(a)(2)(C)
specifically requires that state plans include a PSD and nonattainment
NSR permit program as required in parts C and D of Title I of the Clean
Air Act. The action being finalized today consistent with EPA's
responsibilities under CAA section 110.
A second commenter submitted two substantive comments. First, the
commenter raised concerns regarding EPA's determination that Virginia
has met its obligations with respect to the visibility requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by virtue of its regional haze SIP. Second,
the commenter raised several concerns about the legality of SILs and
SMCs, as well as Virginia's adoption of them.
Comment 1: The commenter claimed that Virginia's regional haze SIP
is insufficient to ensure compliance with visibility requirements under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The commenter stated that Virginia's
regional haze SIP only received limited approval due to its reliance on
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for best available retrofit
technology (BART) for electric generating units. The commenter alleged
that EPA cannot rely on Virginia's regional haze SIP for satisfying
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(ii) because it did not receive full approval,
because CAIR has been remanded by the D.C. Circuit, and because EPA
provided no explanation for how the regional haze SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as they relate to the 1997
ozone NAAQS, the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008
lead NAAQS. The commenter stated that EPA should either revoke its
approval of the Virginia regional haze SIP or, at a minimum, provide an
explanation for how the regional haze SIP ensures visibility will be
protected for the aforementioned NAAQS.
Response 1: In the NPR for this rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve
the following infrastructure SIP submittals as meeting the
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility
protection): The November 13, 2007 Virginia submittal for the 1997 8-
hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS; the December 13, 2007 Virginia
submittal for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; the July 10, 2008 and
September 2, 2008 Virginia submittals for the 1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS; the
April 1, 2011 Virginia submittal for the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS; and, the
March 9, 2012 Virginia SIP submittal for the 2008 lead NAAQS. The
August 2012 NPR was not the first or the most recent proposed
rulemaking issued by EPA relating to Virginia's compliance with the
visibility requirements set forth in Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
On June 13, 2012, EPA issued a final rule granting limited approval
to the Virginia regional haze SIP (See, 77 FR 35287). In that final
rulemaking action, EPA also approved Virginia's regional haze SIP as
satisfying the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J), as they relate to the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Subsequently, on
September 24, 2013, when acting upon Virginia's infrastructure SIP for
the 2008 lead NAAQS, EPA approved that SIP as meeting the
infrastructure requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J).
(See, 78 FR 58462 (Sept. 24, 2013)). Most recently, EPA has proposed to
approve Virginia's infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone and 2010
NO2 NAAQS as meeting the infrastructure requirements in
sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J) (See, 78 FR 39651 (July 2, 2013)
(2008 ozone NAAQS) and 78 FR 47264 (August 5, 2013) (2010
NO2 NAAQS)).
Therefore, as part of the August 2012 NPR for this rulemaking, EPA
inadvertently proposed to approve Virginia's previously submitted
infrastructure SIPs as meeting the infrastructure requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Since final action had been taken
for this requirement during June 2012, further action was not required.
As to EPA's approval of Virginia's compliance with the 110(a)(2)
requirements for visibility (set forth in sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
and (J)) for the 2008 lead NAAQS, subsequent to the August 2012 NPR,
EPA issued a final rulemaking on such requirements on September 24,
2013. Because EPA has already taken separate proposed and final
rulemaking actions to approve these elements of the Virginia SIP, EPA
is taking no further action on its proposed approval of the visibility
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as they relate to the
aforementioned NAAQS.\6\ Additionally, EPA received and responded to
similar comments as part of some or all of these previous rulemakings.
Therefore, EPA is not responding to the comment that Virginia's
regional haze SIP is insufficient to ensure compliance with visibility
requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), as we have already
responded to similar comments in our other actions (See, 77 FR 35287;
78 FR 34970; 78 FR 39651; and 78 FR 47263). As a result, EPA sees no
need for further action or response as part of this final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA also notes there was an inadvertent, incorrect citation
to its approval of the Virginia regional haze SIP in the NPR. The
correct citation to EPA's approval of the Virginia regional haze SIP
is 77 FR 35287 (June 13, 2012) (effective July 13, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: The same commenter argued that ``Virginia's regulations
establishing SILs and SMCs are illegal under the CAA and should be
disapproved by EPA'' (See, Sierra Club Comments at 4). Here the
commenter took issue with both EPA's establishing SILs and SMCs
generally, and with the PM2.5 SILs proposed by Virginia
specifically. First, citing to the litigation in Sierra Club v. EPA
(D.C. Circuit, No. 10-1413), the commenter asserts that EPA lacks the
authority to establish SILs and SMCs because they improperly allow
sources to avoid otherwise applicable CAA requirements. The commenter
asserted that, therefore, EPA should disapprove those portions of
Virginia's SIP submittal pertaining to the PM2.5 SILs and
SMCs, rather than approving the SMCs and taking no action on the SILs,
as proposed.
Secondly, the commenter asserted that the specific SILs at 9VAC5-
80-1715A and B should be disapproved because they do not provide VADEQ
with sufficient discretion to require a cumulative impact analysis
regardless of whether a source's impact is below the SIL. In addition,
the commenter asserts that the SIL values in paragraphs A(2) and B(1)
of section 5-80-1715 are set at different levels and could lead to
confusion. Moreover, the commenter asserted that the SIL values in
paragraph 5-80-1715B(1) are not sufficiently protective of Class I
areas because, unlike the SIL values in paragraph A, paragraph B does
not distinguish different SIL values based on area classifications.
Finally, the commenter asserts that the thresholds in paragraph 5-80-
1715B(1) are improperly incorporated into Virginia's SIP because they
have as their basis Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51, which applies in
situations where EPA has not approved a state's preconstruction review
program.
EPA Response 2: As previously discussed, in light of the D.C.
Circuit's vacatur of 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and (i)(5)(i)(c), Virginia has
officially withdrawn the corresponding state rules with which the
commenter takes issue from the August 25, 2011 SIP submittal. Thus,
there is no need to further consider the commenter's assertion that EPA
should disapprove those provisions in this rulemaking because Virginia
no longer asks that EPA consider them for approval as part of its SIP.
[[Page 10381]]
As to any apparent conflict between the two SIL provisions in
Virginia's SIP submission, paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5-80-1715 has been
withdrawn and thus the commenter's concern regarding any potential for
confusion between the two provisions is addressed by withdrawal of one
provision from the SIP submission.
As to the SILs in paragraph B(1), the commenter is incorrect in the
claim that these SIL values were only intended to apply in states
without an EPA-approved PSD program. While it is true that those SIL
values are published in Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51, they are also
published in section 51.165(b)(2). Section 51.165(b) implements section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA and applies to sources or modifications
locating in attainment or unclassifiable areas that would cause or
contribute to a violation of any NAAQS in any area. This is the basis
for their inclusion in Virginia's SIP. These SILs establish the
threshold at or above which a new major stationary source or major
modification will be considered to cause or contribute to a violation
of an ambient air quality standard, and thus subject to the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.165(b). EPA has recognized that the values in
section 51.165(b)(2) may also be used in the PSD program to support the
demonstration required by 40 CFR 51.165(k)(1) and section 165(a)(3) of
the CAA that proposed construction will not cause or contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS. However, contrary to the commenter's assertion,
the Federal regulations set forth at section 51.165(b) do not impede a
permitting authority's discretion to require a cumulative impact
analysis to make the showing required by section 51.166(k)(1) and
section 165(a)(3) of the CAA where the source's impact is below a SIL
value in section 51.165(b). Similarly, the corresponding state
regulation at 9VAC5-80-1715B(1) does not impede the state's permitting
authority discretion. Both provisions address the threshold above which
a source will be considered to cause or contribute to a NAAQS
violation. However, the provisions do not preclude a determination that
a source may be considered to cause and contribute to a NAAQS violation
even when the impact is below a SIL value set forth in 40 CFR
51.165(b)(2) which is utilized by the permitting authority. In fact,
the court in Sierra Club v. EPA (705 F.3d 458, 469), declined to vacate
the PM2.5 SIL value at section 51.165(b)(2) because the
court explicitly found that, unlike section 51.166(k)(2), this
provision does not improperly restrict permitting authorities'
discretion (See 705 F.3d at 465-66). There is nothing in section 9VAC5-
80-1715B(1) that would preclude VADEQ from imposing additional
requirements on any sources necessary to show that a source does not
cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation, including those sources
impacting Class I areas. Therefore, except for the exceptions noted,
EPA is finalizing the proposal to grant approval to Virginia's August
25, 2011 submittal.
IV. 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 and nonattainment
NSR 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.
V. Final Action
EPA is approving Virginia's August 25, 2011 submittal as a revision
to the Virginia SIP, with the exception of paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5-80-
1715, and the portion of paragraph E(1) of 9VAC5-80-1695 pertaining to
PM2.5 which were withdrawn by Virginia on February 13, 2013.
EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the amendments to the
nonattainment NSR regulations set forth at 9VAC5-80-2010 (Definitions)
and 9VAC5-80-2120 (Offsets). EPA is also approving the August 25, 2011
SIP submittal and the relevant portions of the above identified
infrastructure SIP submittals which relate to the PSD requirements set
forth in CAA sections
[[Page 10382]]
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, and 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is also approving the
relevant portion of Virginia's infrastructure submittal relating to the
PSD permit program pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the
1997 ozone NAAQS. As previously discussed, EPA is not taking final
action on its proposal to approve the portions of the Virginia
infrastructure SIP submittals (which were identified in the NPR and are
identified above) related to the visibility requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, and 2008 lead NAAQS, because a final rulemaking
action has previously been taken.
Additionally, on December 20, 2012 (77 FR 75380), EPA approved
revisions to Articles 8 and 9 of 9VAC5, chapter 80. Neither that action
nor the current action removes the pre-existing limited approval status
of Virginia's PSD and nonattainment programs (See, Section III: General
Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals from the Commonwealth of
Virginia, 77 FR 75380-81, and Section IV, herein). However, the
December 20, 2012 revisions to the table in paragraph 52.2420(c)
inadvertently omitted reference to the limited approval status. In the
interest of clarity, EPA is correcting that omission in this action.
EPA is also adding a citation for the revised 9VAC5-80-1935 to the
table in paragraph 52.2420(c). This revision was discussed in both the
proposed and final rulemaking actions, but was inadvertently omitted
from the table itself.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 28, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to Virginia's PSD and nonattainment NSR
programs may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: January 28, 2014.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart VV--Virginia
0
2. In Sec. 52.2420:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entries for
Sections 5-10-30, 5-80-1615, 5-80-1625, 5-80-1635, 5-80-1695, 5-80-
1715, 5-80-1765, 5-80-1915, 5-80-1925, 5-80-1935, 5-80-1945, 5-80-1955,
5-80-1965, 5-80-2010, 5-80-2020, 5-80-2120, 5-80-2140, 5-80-2195, 5-80-
2200, 5-80-2210, 5-80-2220, 5-80-2230, and 5-80-2240.
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising the entries for
section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS, section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and adding section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS immediately
following the previous entries.
The amendments read as follows:
[[Page 10383]]
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Explanation [former
State citation Title/subject effective date EPA approval date SIP citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
9VAC5, Chapter 10................ General Definitions [Part I]
* * * * * * *
5-10-30.......................... Abbreviations...... 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert Revised.
page number where
the document
begins].
* * * * * * *
9VAC5, Chapter 80................ Permits for Stationary Sources [Part VIII]
* * * * * * *
Article 8........................ Permits--Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas
* * * * * * *
5-80-1615........................ Definitions........ 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert Revised. Limited
page number where approval remains
the document in effect.
begins].
5-80-1625........................ General............ 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR Revised. Limited
75380. approval remains
in effect.
5-80-1635........................ Ambient Air 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert Revised. Limited
Increments. page number where approval remains
the document in effect.
begins].
* * * * * * *
5-80-1695........................ Exemptions......... 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert Revised. The
page number where portion of
the document paragraph E(1)
begins]. that relates to
PM2.5 is not in
the SIP. Limited
approval remains
in effect.
* * * * * * *
5-80-1715 (Except paragraph A(2)) Source impact 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert Revised. Paragraph
analysis. page number where A(2) is not in the
the document SIP. Limited
begins]. approval remains
in effect.
* * * * * * *
5-80-1765........................ Sources affecting 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert Revised. Limited
Federal class I page number where approval remains
areas--additional the document in effect.
requirements. begins].
* * * * * * *
5-80-1915........................ Actions to combine 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR New. Limited
permit terms and 75380. approval.
conditions.
5-80-1925........................ Actions to change 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR Revised. Limited
permits. 75380. approval remains
in effect.
5-80-1935........................ Administrative 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR Revised. Limited
permit amendments. 75380. approval remains
in effect.
5-80-1945........................ Minor permit 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR Revised. Limited
amendments. 75380. approval remains
in effect.
5-80-1955........................ Significant 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR Revised. Limited
amendment 75380. approval remains
procedures. in effect.
5-80-1965........................ Reopening for cause 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR Revised. Limited
75380. approval remains
in effect.
* * * * * * *
Article 9........................ Permits--Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in
Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone Transport Region
* * * * * * *
5-80-2010........................ Definitions........ 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert Revised. Limited
page number where approval of 9/1/06
the document and 8/17/11
begins]. amendments.
5-80-2020........................ General............ 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR Revised. Limited
75380. approval remains
in effect.
* * * * * * *
5-80-2120........................ Offsets............ 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert Revised. Limited
page number where approval of 9/1/06
the document and 8/17/11
begins]. amendments.
[[Page 10384]]
* * * * * * *
5-80-2140........................ Exemptions......... 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR Revised. Limited
75380. approval remains
in effect.
* * * * * * *
5-80-2195........................ Actions to combine 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR New. Limited
permit terms and 75380. approval.
conditions.
5-80-2200........................ Actions to change 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR Revised. Limited
permits. 75380. approval remains
in effect.
5-80-2210........................ Administrative 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR Revised. Limited
permit amendments. 75380. approval remains
in effect.
5-80-2220........................ Minor permit 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR Revised. Limited
amendments. 75380. approval remains
in effect.
5-80-2230........................ Significant 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR Revised. Limited
amendment 75380. approval remains
procedures. in effect.
5-80-2240........................ Reopening for cause 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR Revised. Limited
75380. approval remains
in effect.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State Additional
revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Statewide.......... 12/10/07, 12/ 10/11/11; 76 FR This action
Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 13/07, 6/8/10, 62635. addresses the
Ozone NAAQS. 6/9/10 following CAA
elements or
portions thereof:
110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(ii), (E),
(F), (G), (H),
(J), (K), (L), and
(M).
................... 11/13/07, 12/ 2/25/14 [Insert This action
13/07, 8/25/11 Federal Register addresses the PSD
page number where related elements
the document of the following
begins]. CAA requirements:
110(a)(2)(D)(i)
(II).
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Statewide.......... 7/10/08, 9/2/ 10/11/11; 76 FR This action
Requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 08, 6/8/10, 6/ 62635. addresses the
NAAQS. 9/10, 4/1/08 following CAA
elements or
portions thereof:
110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(ii), (E),
(F), (G), (H),
(J), (K), (L), and
(M).
................... 11/13/07, 7/10/ 2/25/14 [Insert This action
08, 9/2/08, 8/ Federal Register addresses the PSD
25/11 page number where related elements
the document of the following
begins]. CAA requirements:
110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and
(J).
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Statewide.......... 8/30/10, 4/1/ 10/11/11; 76 FR This action
Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 11 62635. addresses the
NAAQS. following CAA
elements or
portions thereof:
110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(ii), (E),
(F), (G), (H),
(J), (K), (L), and
(M).
................... 4/1/11, 8/25/ 2/25/14 [Insert This action
11 Federal Register addresses the PSD
page number where related elements
the document of the following
begins]. CAA requirements:
110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and
(J).
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Statewide.......... 3/9/12 9/24/13, 78 FR This action
Requirements for the 2008 Lead 58462. addresses the
NAAQS. following CAA
elements or
portions thereof:
110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C) (for
enforcement and
regulation of
minor sources),
(D)(i)(I),
(D)(i)(II) (for
the visibility
protection
portion), (D)(ii),
(E)(i), (E)(iii),
(F), (G), (H),
(J), (K), (L), and
(M).
................... 8/25/11 2/25/14 [Insert This action
Federal Register addresses the PSD
page number where related elements
the document of the following
begins]. CAA requirements:
110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and
(J).
[[Page 10385]]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-03640 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P