Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Removal of Two Operating Permits and a Consent Agreement for the Potomac River Generating Station From the State Implementation Plan, 47004-47007 [2014-18930]
Download as PDF
47004
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2014–0656]
Safety Zone; Pyro Spectaculars for
USS MIDWAY Museum, San Diego, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of
regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard will enforce
the Pyro Spectaculars USS MIDWAY
Museum firework display safety zone on
August 28, 2014. This marine event
occurs on the navigable waters of San
Diego Bay, immediately to the west of
the USS MIDWAY, in San Diego,
California. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of the
participants, crew, spectators, safety
vessels, and general users of the
waterway. During the enforcement
period, persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this
regulated area unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.
SUMMARY:
The regulations for the marine
event listed in the Table to 33 CFR
165.1123(6) will be enforced on August
28, 2014 from 9 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this notice, call
or email Petty Officer Giacomo Terrizzi,
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone
(619) 278–7261, email
Giacomo.Terrizzi@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast
Guard will enforce the safety zone in
San Diego Bay for the Pyro Spectacular,
Inc for USS MIDWAY Museum
fireworks display in 33 CFR 165.1123,
Table 1, Item 6 from 9:00 p.m. to 9:30
p.m.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR
165.1123, persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within the 600
foot regulated area safety zone that
includes the tug and barge unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or
his designated representative. Persons
or vessels desiring to enter into or pass
through the safety zone may request
permission from the Captain of the Port
or a designated representative. If
permission is granted, all persons and
vessels shall comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port or
designated representative. Spectator
vessels may safely transit outside the
regulated area, but may not anchor,
block, loiter, or impede the transit of
participants or official patrol vessels or
commercial traffic within the federal
channel. The Coast Guard may be
assisted by other Federal, State, or local
law enforcement agencies in patrol and
notification of this regulation.
This notice is issued under authority
of 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 33 CFR 165.1123.
In addition to this notice in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide
the maritime community with advance
notification of this enforcement period
via the Local Notice to Mariners,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local
advertising by the event sponsor. If the
Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or
his designated representative
determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration
stated on this notice, he or she may use
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other
communications coordinated with the
event sponsor to grant general
permission to enter the regulated area.
Dated: July 25, 2014.
S.M. Mahoney,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2014–19064 Filed 8–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:41 Aug 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0511; FRL–9915–
006–Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Removal of Two Operating Permits and
a Consent Agreement for the Potomac
River Generating Station From the
State Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the
Commonwealth of Virginia State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision
removes from the Virginia SIP
references to two operating permits and
a consent agreement for GenOn Potomac
River, LLC’s Potomac River Generating
Station (Potomac River), which was
formerly owned by Potomac Electric
Power Company. Potomac River has
permanently shut down; therefore, the
permits and consent agreement are no
longer applicable and are being removed
from the Virginia SIP. EPA is approving
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
these revisions in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on October
14, 2014 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse written comment
by September 11, 2014. If EPA receives
such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2014–0511 by one of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0511,
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning, Mailcode
3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014–
0511. 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
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by
email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background
In 1979, EPA promulgated the 1-hour
0.12 parts per million (ppm) groundlevel ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). See 44 FR 8202
(Feb. 8, 1979). The Northern Virginia
portion, consisting of the counties of
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince
William, and Stafford and the cities of
Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church,
Manassas, and Manassas Park in
Virginia was originally classified as part
of the Metropolitan Washington, DC–
MD–VA serious nonattainment area (the
Washington Area). See 40 CFR 81.347.
On January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3411), EPA
determined that the Washington Area
failed to attain the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS by November 15, 1999, as
required by section 181(a) of the CAA,
and the Washington Area was
reclassified to a severe ozone
nonattainment area pursuant to section
181(b)(2) of the CAA.
As a result of the Washington Area’s
classification, each state, including the
Commonwealth of Virginia, was
required to submit a SIP demonstrating
how attainment of the NAAQS would be
met. In order to demonstrate attainment,
the Commonwealth of Virginia
implemented state-specific controls
with the goal of limiting emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) from the area’s
electric utility plants to 0.15 pounds per
million British Thermal Units (BTUs) of
heat (fuel) input to the boilers. As a
coal-fired electric generating facility that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:41 Aug 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
emitted volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and NOX, Potomac River,
located in Alexandria, Virginia, was
identified as a source subject to control,
and a state operating permit was created
as a vehicle for implementing the
control measure. EPA approved this
permit into the SIP on December 14,
2000 (65 FR 78100).
Potomac River was also identified as
a source subject to reasonably available
control technology (RACT)
requirements. EPA defines RACT as
‘‘the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting
by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility.’’
See 44 FR 53761 (Sept. 17, 1979). In
order to ensure compliance with the
RACT requirements for the control of
VOCs, a state operating permit was
issued by the Commonwealth of
Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (VADEQ) for Potomac River and
approved by EPA into the SIP on
January 2, 2001 (66 FR 8). In order to
ensure compliance with the RACT
requirements for the control of NOX, a
consent agreement was entered between
Virginia and the owner of Potomac
River and approved by EPA into the SIP
on January 2, 2001 (66 FR 8).
II. Summary of SIP Revision
On May 10, 2013, VADEQ submitted
a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP
revision consists of a request by the
Commonwealth to remove from the
Virginia SIP the two operating permits
and consent agreement discussed above
for Potomac River. On December 21,
2012, GenOn Potomac River, LLC and
VADEQ signed a mutual determination
of permanent shutdown of the
Alexandria, Virginia facility. The SIP
submission includes a copy of the
signed determination which: (1)
Mutually agrees that the source is
permanently shutdown, (2) establishes
that all permits for the source in
accordance with 9VAC5–20–220 are
revoked, (3) removes the source from
the air emissions inventory, and (4)
establishes that any future operations
must be in accordance with Virginia’s
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permit program pursuant to
9VAC5 Chapter 80. If Potomac River
should resume operation in the future,
VADEQ may be required at that time to
revise its SIP as appropriate.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the May 10, 2013
submittal from VADEQ that removes
from the Virginia SIP the two operating
permits and consent agreement for
Potomac River because the source has
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47005
permanently shutdown and all of the
source’s permits are revoked. EPA
believes this revision will not interfere
with Virginia’s attainment or
maintenance of any NAAQS. EPA is
publishing this rule without prior
proposal because the Agency views this
as a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipates no adverse comment.
However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’
section of today’s Federal Register, EPA
is publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the
SIP revision if adverse comments are
filed. This rule will be effective on
October 14, 2014 without further notice
unless EPA receives adverse comment
by September 11, 2014. If EPA receives
adverse comment, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect. EPA will
address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time.
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.
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
47006
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 § 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,
therefore, documents or other
information needed for civil or criminal
enforcement under one of these
programs could not be privileged
because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing
enforcement in a manner required by
Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval.’’
Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec.
10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent
consistent with requirements imposed
by Federal law,’’ any person making a
voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an
environmental statute, regulation,
permit, or administrative order is
granted immunity from administrative
or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s
January 12, 1998 opinion states that the
quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any
Federally authorized programs, since
‘‘no immunity could be afforded from
administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such
immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria
for immunity.’’
Therefore, EPA has determined that
Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity
statutes will not preclude the
Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal
requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state
audit privilege and immunity law can
affect only state enforcement and cannot
have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at
any time invoke its authority under the
CAA, including, for example, sections
113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the
requirements or prohibitions of the state
plan, independently of any state
enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the
CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or
any, state audit privilege or immunity
law.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:41 Aug 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
A. General Requirements
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
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
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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. Section 804,
however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of
particular applicability; rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and
rules of agency organization, procedure,
or practice that do not substantially
affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because
this is a rule of particular applicability,
EPA is not required to submit a rule
report regarding this action under
section 801.
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 October 14, 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. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking action.
This action to remove the two
operating permits and a consent
agreement for Potomac River from the
Virginia SIP may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: July 29, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting 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 part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart VV—Virginia
§ 52.2420
[Amended]
2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(d) is amended by removing the three
entries entitled ‘‘Potomac Electric Power
Company (PEPCO)-Potomac River
Generating Station [Permit to Operate]’’,
‘‘Potomac Electric Power Company
(PEPCO)—Potomac River Generating
Station [Consent Agreement]’’, and
‘‘Potomac Electric Power Company
(PEPCO)—Potomac River Generating
Station’’.
■
[FR Doc. 2014–18930 Filed 8–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL 9914–
92–Region 8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan: Partial
Deletion of the California Gulch
Superfund Site National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is
publishing a direct final Notice of
Partial Deletion of Operable Unit 4,
(OU4) Upper California Gulch; Operable
Unit 5 (OU5), ASARCO Smelters/Slag/
Mill Sites; and Operable Unit 7 (OU7),
Apache Tailing Impoundment, of the
California Gulch Superfund Site (Site),
located in Lake County, Colorado, from
the National Priorities List (NPL). The
NPL, promulgated pursuant to section
105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct
final partial deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:11 Aug 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
State of Colorado (State), through the
Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (CDPHE) because EPA
has determined that all appropriate
response actions at OU4, OU5 and OU7
under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews,
have been completed. However, this
partial deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.
This partial deletion pertains to all of
OU4, OU5 and OU7. Operable Unit 2
(OU2), Malta Gulch Tailing
Impoundments and Lower Malta Gulch
Fluvial Tailing; Operable Unit 8 (OU8),
Lower California Gulch; Operable Unit
9 (OU9), Residential Populated Areas;
and Operable Unit 10 (OU10), Oregon
Gulch, were previously partially deleted
from the NPL. Operable Unit 1 (OU1),
the Yak Tunnel; Operable Unit 3 (OU3),
D&RGW Slag Piles and Easement;
Operable Unit 6 (OU6), Stray Horse
Gulch; Operable Unit 11 (OU11),
Arkansas River Floodplain; and
Operable Unit 12 (OU12), Site-wide
Surface and Groundwater Quality, are
not being considered for deletion as part
of this action and will remain on the
NPL.
DATES: This direct final partial deletion
is effective October 14, 2014 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by
September 11, 2014. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final partial deletion in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the partial deletion will not take
effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-Mail: Linda Kiefer, kiefer.linda@
epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–7151.
• Mail: Linda Kiefer, Remedial
Project Manager, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code
8EPR–SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, CO 80202–1129.
• Hand Delivery: Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code
8EPR–SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, CO 80202–1129. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–
0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47007
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically in
https://www.regulations.gov; by calling
EPA Region 8 at (303) 312–7279 and
leaving a message; and at the Lake
County Public Library, 1115 Harrison
Avenue, Leadville, CO 80461, (719)
486–0569, Monday and Wednesday
from 10:00 a.m.–8:00 p.m., Tuesday and
Thursday from 10:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.,
and Friday and Saturday 1:00 p.m.–5:00
p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Linda Kiefer, Remedial Project Manager,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8, Mailcode EPR–SR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202–
1129, (303) 312–6689, email:
kiefer.linda@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47004-47007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18930]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0511; FRL-9915-006-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Removal of Two Operating Permits and a Consent Agreement for
the Potomac River Generating Station From the State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision removes from the Virginia SIP
references to two operating permits and a consent agreement for GenOn
Potomac River, LLC's Potomac River Generating Station (Potomac River),
which was formerly owned by Potomac Electric Power Company. Potomac
River has permanently shut down; therefore, the permits and consent
agreement are no longer applicable and are being removed from the
Virginia SIP. EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on October 14, 2014 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 11,
2014. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0511 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0511, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0511. 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
[[Page 47005]]
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by
email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In 1979, EPA promulgated the 1-hour 0.12 parts per million (ppm)
ground-level ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). See
44 FR 8202 (Feb. 8, 1979). The Northern Virginia portion, consisting of
the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, and
Stafford and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas,
and Manassas Park in Virginia was originally classified as part of the
Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA serious nonattainment area (the
Washington Area). See 40 CFR 81.347. On January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3411),
EPA determined that the Washington Area failed to attain the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1999, as required by section 181(a) of the
CAA, and the Washington Area was reclassified to a severe ozone
nonattainment area pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA.
As a result of the Washington Area's classification, each state,
including the Commonwealth of Virginia, was required to submit a SIP
demonstrating how attainment of the NAAQS would be met. In order to
demonstrate attainment, the Commonwealth of Virginia implemented state-
specific controls with the goal of limiting emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) from the area's electric utility plants to 0.15
pounds per million British Thermal Units (BTUs) of heat (fuel) input to
the boilers. As a coal-fired electric generating facility that emitted
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX, Potomac River,
located in Alexandria, Virginia, was identified as a source subject to
control, and a state operating permit was created as a vehicle for
implementing the control measure. EPA approved this permit into the SIP
on December 14, 2000 (65 FR 78100).
Potomac River was also identified as a source subject to reasonably
available control technology (RACT) requirements. EPA defines RACT as
``the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility.'' See 44
FR 53761 (Sept. 17, 1979). In order to ensure compliance with the RACT
requirements for the control of VOCs, a state operating permit was
issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (VADEQ) for Potomac River and approved by EPA into the SIP on
January 2, 2001 (66 FR 8). In order to ensure compliance with the RACT
requirements for the control of NOX, a consent agreement was
entered between Virginia and the owner of Potomac River and approved by
EPA into the SIP on January 2, 2001 (66 FR 8).
II. Summary of SIP Revision
On May 10, 2013, VADEQ submitted a formal revision to its SIP. The
SIP revision consists of a request by the Commonwealth to remove from
the Virginia SIP the two operating permits and consent agreement
discussed above for Potomac River. On December 21, 2012, GenOn Potomac
River, LLC and VADEQ signed a mutual determination of permanent
shutdown of the Alexandria, Virginia facility. The SIP submission
includes a copy of the signed determination which: (1) Mutually agrees
that the source is permanently shutdown, (2) establishes that all
permits for the source in accordance with 9VAC5-20-220 are revoked, (3)
removes the source from the air emissions inventory, and (4)
establishes that any future operations must be in accordance with
Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program
pursuant to 9VAC5 Chapter 80. If Potomac River should resume operation
in the future, VADEQ may be required at that time to revise its SIP as
appropriate.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the May 10, 2013 submittal from VADEQ that removes
from the Virginia SIP the two operating permits and consent agreement
for Potomac River because the source has permanently shutdown and all
of the source's permits are revoked. EPA believes this revision will
not interfere with Virginia's attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed.
This rule will be effective on October 14, 2014 without further notice
unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 11, 2014. If EPA
receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time.
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.
[[Page 47006]]
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec. 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.'' Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides
that ``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
V. 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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
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 October 14, 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action.
This action to remove the two operating permits and a consent
agreement for Potomac River from the Virginia SIP may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
[[Page 47007]]
Dated: July 29, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart VV--Virginia
Sec. 52.2420 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 52.2420, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing
the three entries entitled ``Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)-
Potomac River Generating Station [Permit to Operate]'', ``Potomac
Electric Power Company (PEPCO)--Potomac River Generating Station
[Consent Agreement]'', and ``Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)--
Potomac River Generating Station''.
[FR Doc. 2014-18930 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P