Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 49731-49736 [2014-20032]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
determined that the proposed rule, if
finalized, would not contain policies
that would have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.
Accordingly, the Agency tentatively
concludes that the proposed rule does
not contain policies that have
federalism implications as defined in
the E.O. and, consequently, a federalism
summary impact statement is not
required.
X. Request for Comments
Interested persons may submit either
electronic comments regarding this
document to https://www.regulations.gov
or written comments to the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It
is only necessary to send one set of
comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
will be posted to the docket at https://
www.regulations.gov.
XI. Reference
FDA has placed the following
reference on display in the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES)
and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday and are available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov.
1. Anderson, J. F., ‘‘The Influence of
Concentration (Gibson’s Method) On the
Presence of Tetanus Toxin in Blood
Serum,’’ Journal of Experimental
Medicine: 1909 September 2; 11(5): 656–
658.
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,
353, 355, 360, 360c, 360d, 360h, 360i, 371,
372, 374, 381; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263, 263a,
264.
§ 610.11
■
[Removed and Reserved]
2. Remove and reserve § 610.11.
§ 610.11a
■
[Removed and Reserved]
3. Remove and reserve § 610.11a.
PART 680—ADDITIONAL STANDARDS
FOR MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS
4. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 680 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353,
355, 360, 371; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263, 263a,
264.
§ 680.3
■
[Amended]
5. Remove and reserve paragraph (b).
Dated: August 18, 2014.
Peter Lurie,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and
Planning.
[FR Doc. 2014–19888 Filed 8–21–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0522; FRL–9915–48Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Infrastructure Requirements for the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to
the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new
or revised National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated,
the CAA requires states to submit a plan
for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of such NAAQS. The
plan is required to address basic
program elements including, but not
limited to, regulatory structure,
monitoring, modeling, legal authority,
and adequate resources necessary to
assure attainment and maintenance of
the standards. These elements are
referred to as infrastructure
requirements. The Commonwealth of
Virginia has made a submittal
addressing the infrastructure
SUMMARY:
List of Subjects
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21 CFR Part 610
Biologics, Labeling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
21 CFR Part 680
Biologics, Blood, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public
Health Service Act, and under authority
delegated to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR
parts 610 and 680 be amended as
follows:
PART 610—GENERAL BIOLOGICAL
PRODUCTS STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 610 continues to read as follows:
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49731
requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 22,
2014.
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2014–0522 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–2014–0522,
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,
Office of Air Program Planning, Air
Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP30,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014–
0522. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
49732
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov.
On June
23, 2014, the Commonwealth of Virginia
through the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ)
submitted a revision to the
Commonwealth’s SIP to satisfy the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
On June 22, 2010, (75 FR 35520), EPA
promulgated a revised NAAQS for the 1hour primary SO2 at a level of 75 parts
per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of
1-hour daily maximum concentrations.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
states to submit SIPs to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of a new or revised
NAAQS. Specifically, Section 110(a)(1)
requires states to submit SIPs meeting
the applicable requirements of Section
110(a)(2) within three years following
the promulgation of such NAAQS, or
within such shorter period as EPA may
prescribe, and Section 110(a)(2) requires
states to address specific elements for
monitoring, basic program requirements
and legal authority that are designed to
assure attainment and maintenance of
the newly established or revised
NAAQS. The contents of a submission
may vary depending upon the facts and
circumstances. In particular, the data
and analytical tools available at the time
the state develops and submits the SIP
for a new or revised NAAQS affects the
content of the submission. The contents
of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the
state’s existing SIP already contains.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
II. Summary of SIP Revision
On June 23, 2014, VADEQ provided a
SIP revision to satisfy certain Section
110(a)(2) requirements of the CAA for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. This revision
addressed the following infrastructure
elements which EPA is proposing to
approve: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant
deterioration), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J) (consultation, public
notification, and prevention of
significant deterioration), (K), (L), and
(M). A detailed summary of EPA’s
review and rationale for approving
Virginia’s submittal may be found in the
Technical Support Document (TSD) for
this rulemaking action which is
available on line at
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number
EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0522.
This rulemaking action does not
include any proposed action on Section
110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains
to the nonattainment requirements of
part D, Title I of the CAA, because this
element is not required to be submitted
by the 3-year submission deadline of
CAA Section 110(a)(1), and will be
addressed in a separate process. This
rulemaking action also does not include
proposed action on Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA because
Virginia’s submittal did not include a
submittal for this element; therefore,
EPA will take later, separate action on
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS for Virginia. At this time,
EPA is not proposing action on Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) or (J) for visibility
protection for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Although Virginia’s infrastructure SIP
submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
referred to Virginia’s regional haze SIP
for addressing requirements in Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J) for visibility
protection, EPA intends to take separate
action on Virginia’s submittal for these
elements at a later date as explained in
the TSD. Finally, EPA will take later,
separate action with respect to Section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) regarding CAA Section
128 requirements for State Boards for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before
taking final action.
III. EPA’s Approach To Review
Infrastructure SIPs
EPA is acting upon the SIP
submission from Virginia that addresses
the infrastructure requirements of
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The requirement
for states to make a SIP submission of
this type arises out of Section 110(a)(1).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Pursuant to Section 110(a)(1), states
must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3
years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary
ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),’’ and these SIP
submissions are to provide for the
‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the
duty to make these SIP submissions,
and the requirement to make the
submissions is not conditioned upon
EPA’s taking any action other than
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such
plan’’ submission must address.
EPA has historically referred to these
SIP submissions made for the purpose
of satisfying the requirements of Section
110(a)(1) and (2) as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’
submissions. Although the term
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ does not appear in
the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP
submission from submissions that are
intended to satisfy other SIP
requirements under the CAA, such as
‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or ‘‘attainment
plan SIP’’ submissions to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of
part D of title I of the CAA, ‘‘regional
haze SIP’’ submissions required by EPA
rule to address the visibility protection
requirements of CAA Section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review
permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I,
part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing
and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions and
Section 110(a)(2) provides more details
concerning the required contents of
these submissions. The list of required
elements provided in Section 110(a)(2)
contains a wide variety of disparate
provisions, some of which pertain to
required legal authority, some of which
pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain
to requirements for both authority and
substantive program provisions.1 EPA
therefore believes that while the timing
requirement in Section 110(a)(1) is
unambiguous, some of the other
statutory provisions are ambiguous. In
particular, EPA believes that the list of
1 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides
that states must provide assurances that they have
adequate legal authority under state and local law
to carry out the SIP; Section 110(a)(2)(C) provides
that states must have a SIP-approved program to
address certain sources as required by part C of title
I of the CAA; and Section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that
states must have legal authority to address
emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in Section
110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for
inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
The following examples of
ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some Section 110(a)(1) and
Section 110(a)(2) requirements with
respect to infrastructure SIP
submissions for a given new or revised
NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is
that Section 110(a)(2) requires that
‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the
list of requirements therein, while EPA
has long noted that this literal reading
of the statute is internally inconsistent
and would create a conflict with the
nonattainment provisions in part D of
title I of the CAA, which specifically
address nonattainment SIP
requirements.2 Section 110(a)(2)(I)
pertains to nonattainment SIP
requirements and part D addresses
when attainment plan SIP submissions
to address nonattainment area
requirements are due. For example,
Section 172(b) requires EPA to establish
a schedule for submission of such plans
for certain pollutants when the
Administrator promulgates the
designation of an area as nonattainment,
and Section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to
two years or in some cases three years,
for such designations to be
promulgated.3 This ambiguity illustrates
that rather than apply all the stated
requirements of Section 110(a)(2) in a
strict literal sense, EPA must determine
which provisions of Section 110(a)(2)
are applicable for a particular
infrastructure SIP submission.
Another example of ambiguity within
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to
infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure
SIP requirements in a single SIP
submission, and whether EPA must act
upon such SIP submission in a single
action. Although Section 110(a)(1)
directs states to submit ‘‘a plan’’ to meet
these requirements, EPA interprets the
CAA to allow states to make multiple
2 See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air
Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR
25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of Section
110(a)(2)(D) versus Section 110(a)(2)(I)).
3 EPA notes that this ambiguity within Section
110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various
subparts of part D set specific dates for submission
of certain types of SIP submissions in designated
nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note,
e.g., that Section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates
for submission of emissions inventories for the
ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are
necessarily later than three years after promulgation
of the new or revised NAAQS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
SIP submissions separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same
NAAQS. If states elect to make such
multiple SIP submissions to meet the
infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA
can elect to act on such submissions
either individually or in a larger
combined action.4 Similarly, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take
action on the individual parts of one
larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on the entire
submission. For example, EPA has
sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP
submission.5
Ambiguities within Section 110(a)(1)
and (2) may also arise with respect to
infrastructure SIP submission
requirements for different NAAQS.
Thus, EPA notes that not every element
of Section 110(a)(2) would be relevant,
or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS.
The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP
submissions for each NAAQS therefore
could be different. For example, the
monitoring requirements that a state
might need to meet in its infrastructure
SIP submission for purposes of Section
110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for
different pollutants, for example
because the content and scope of a
state’s infrastructure SIP submission to
meet this element might be very
different for an entirely new NAAQS
than for a minor revision to an existing
NAAQS.6
4 See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to
the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment
New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action
approving the structural PSD elements of the New
Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to
meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR
rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 78 FR
4337 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).
5 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee,
through the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA
demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action
for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on
January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action
on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16,
2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR
42997), EPA took separate proposed and final
actions on all other Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007
submittal.
6 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM
2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of
new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new
indicator species for the new NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49733
EPA notes that interpretation of
Section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when
EPA reviews other types of SIP
submissions required under the CAA.
Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP
submissions, EPA also has to identify
and interpret the relevant elements of
Section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to
these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, Section 172(c)(7) requires
that attainment plan SIP submissions
required by part D have to meet the
‘‘applicable requirements’’ of Section
110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment
plan SIP submissions must meet the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits
and control measures and Section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency
resources and authority. By contrast, it
is clear that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D would
not need to meet the portion of Section
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) program required in part C of title
I of the CAA, because PSD does not
apply to a pollutant for which an area
is designated nonattainment and thus
subject to part D planning requirements.
As this example illustrates, each type of
SIP submission may implicate some
elements of Section 110(a)(2) but not
others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in
some of the statutory language of
Section 110(a)(1) and Section 110(a)(2),
EPA believes that it is appropriate to
interpret the ambiguous portions of
Section 110(a)(1) and Section 110(a)(2)
in the context of acting on a particular
SIP submission. In other words, EPA
assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP
development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or
meet each of them in the same way.
Therefore, EPA has adopted an
approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against
the list of elements in Section 110(a)(2),
but only to the extent each element
applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use
guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for
infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on
newly arising issues and in some cases
conveying interpretations that have
already been developed and applied to
individual SIP submissions for
particular elements.7 EPA most recently
7 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA
requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
Continued
22AUP1
49734
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs
on September 13, 2013 (2013
Guidance).8 EPA developed this
document to provide states with up-todate guidance for infrastructure SIPs for
any new or revised NAAQS. Within this
guidance, EPA describes the duty of
states to make infrastructure SIP
submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made
recommendations about many specific
subsections of Section 110(a)(2) that are
relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.9 The guidance also
discusses the substantively important
issues that are germane to certain
subsections of Section 110(a)(2).
Significantly, EPA interprets Section
110(a)(1) and (2) such that infrastructure
SIP submissions need to address certain
issues and need not address others.
Accordingly, EPA reviews each
infrastructure SIP submission for
compliance with the applicable
statutory provisions of Section 110(a)(2),
as appropriate.
As an example, Section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
Section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP
submissions. Under this element, a state
must meet the substantive requirements
of Section 128, which pertain to state
boards that approve permits or
enforcement orders and heads of
executive agencies with similar powers.
Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP
submissions to ensure that the state’s
SIP appropriately addresses the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and Section 128. The 2013 Guidance
explains EPA’s interpretation that there
may be a variety of ways by which states
can appropriately address these
substantive statutory requirements,
regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The
CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions,
regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance
or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA
elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
8 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13,
2013.
9 EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not
make recommendations with respect to
infrastructure SIP submissions to address Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the
DC Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d
7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of
the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA
elected not to provide additional guidance on the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that
time. As the guidance is neither binding nor
required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide
guidance on a particular section has no impact on
a state’s CAA obligations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
depending on the structure of an
individual state’s permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether
permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or
by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the
state, the substantive requirements of
Section 128 are necessarily included in
EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP
submissions because Section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that
the state satisfy the provisions of
Section 128.
As another example, EPA’s review of
infrastructure SIP submissions with
respect to the PSD program
requirements in Section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the
structural PSD program requirements
contained in part C and EPA’s PSD
regulations. Structural PSD program
requirements include provisions
necessary for the PSD program to
address all regulated sources and NSR
pollutants, including Green House
Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural
PSD program requirements do not
include provisions that are not required
under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option
to provide grandfathering of complete
permit applications with respect to the
2013 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the
latter optional provisions are types of
provisions EPA considers irrelevant in
the context of an infrastructure SIP
action.
For other Section 110(a)(2) elements,
however, EPA’s review of a state’s
infrastructure SIP submission focuses
on assuring that the state’s SIP meets
basic structural requirements. For
example, Section 110(a)(2)(C) includes,
inter alia, the requirement that states
have a program to regulate minor new
sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether
the state has an EPA-approved minor
new source review program and
whether the program addresses the
pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In
the context of acting on an
infrastructure SIP submission, however,
EPA does not think it is necessary to
conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state’s existing minor
source program (i.e., already in the
existing SIP) for compliance with the
requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
regulations that pertain to such
programs.
With respect to certain other issues,
EPA does not believe that an action on
a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is
necessarily the appropriate type of
action in which to address possible
deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP.
These issues include: (i) Existing
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
provisions related to excess emissions
from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies
addressing such excess emissions
(SSM); (ii) existing provisions related to
‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s
discretion’’ that may be contrary to the
CAA because they purport to allow
revisions to SIP-approved emissions
limits while limiting public process or
not requiring further approval by EPA;
and (iii) existing provisions for PSD
programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final
NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72
FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform).
Thus, EPA believes it may approve an
infrastructure SIP submission without
scrutinizing the totality of the existing
SIP for such potentially deficient
provisions and may approve the
submission even if it is aware of such
existing provisions.10 It is important to
note that EPA’s approval of a state’s
infrastructure SIP submission should
not be construed as explicit or implicit
re-approval of any existing potentially
deficient provisions that relate to the
three specific issues just described.
EPA’s approach to review of
infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are
logically applicable to that submission.
EPA believes that this approach to the
review of a particular infrastructure SIP
submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the
general requirements of Section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in
Section 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state’s
existing SIP against all requirements in
the CAA and EPA regulations merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in
question has the basic structural
elements for a functioning SIP for a new
or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as
statutory and regulatory requirements
under the CAA have evolved, they may
include some outmoded provisions and
historical artifacts. These provisions,
while not fully up to date, nevertheless
may not pose a significant problem for
the purposes of ‘‘implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a
new or revised NAAQS when EPA
evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure
SIP submission. EPA believes that a
10 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to
include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP
submission that contained a legal deficiency, such
as a new exemption for excess emissions during
SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that
provision for compliance against the rubric of
applicable CAA requirements in the context of the
action on the infrastructure SIP.
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
better approach is for states and EPA to
focus attention on those elements of
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely
to warrant a specific SIP revision due to
the promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance
gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other
NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility
requirements of Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As
a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or
revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide
need only state this fact in order to
address the visibility prong of Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its
approach with respect to infrastructure
SIP requirements is based on a
reasonable reading of Section 110(a)(1)
and (2) because the CAA provides other
avenues and mechanisms to address
specific substantive deficiencies in
existing SIPs. These other statutory tools
allow EPA to take appropriately tailored
action, depending upon the nature and
severity of the alleged SIP deficiency.
Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to
issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency
determines that a state’s SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or
maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise
comply with the CAA.11 Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct
errors in past actions, such as past
approvals of SIP submissions.12
Significantly, EPA’s determination that
an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission is not the appropriate time
and place to address all potential
existing SIP deficiencies does not
preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on
provisions in Section 110(a)(2) as part of
the basis for action to correct those
deficiencies at a later time. For example,
11 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to
address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to
the treatment of excess emissions during SSM
events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of
Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639
(April 18, 2011).
12 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in
past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD
programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in
State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR
82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously
used its authority under CAA Section 110(k)(6) to
remove numerous other SIP provisions that the
Agency determined it had approved in error. See,
e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641
(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69
FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections to
California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
although it may not be appropriate to
require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director’s discretion
provisions in the course of acting on an
infrastructure SIP submission, EPA
believes that Section 110(a)(2)(A) may
be among the statutory bases that EPA
relies upon in the course of addressing
such deficiency in a subsequent
action.13
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the
following elements of Virginia’s June 23,
2014 SIP revision for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant
deterioration), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J) (consultation, public
notification, and prevention of
significant deterioration), (K), (L), and
(M). Virginia’s SIP revision provides the
basic program elements specified in
Section 110(a)(2) necessary to
implement, maintain, and enforce the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. This proposed
rulemaking action does not include
action on Section 110(a)(2)(I) which
pertains to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the
CAA, because this element is not
required to be submitted by the 3-year
submission deadline of Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, and will be
addressed in a separate process.
Additionally, EPA will take later,
separate action on Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (interstate transport of
emissions), (D)(i)(II) (visibility
protection), (J) (visibility protection) and
(E)(ii) (Section 128, ‘‘State Boards’’) for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as discussed
above and in the TSD. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before
taking final action.
V. 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
13 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission
from Colorado on the grounds that it would have
included a director’s discretion provision
inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
Section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344
(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s
discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26,
2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49735
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,
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
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
49736
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, which
satisfies certain infrastructure
requirements of Section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, does not
have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each
state adopt and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, which is
commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. SC DHEC certified
that the South Carolina SIP contains
provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is implemented,
enforced, and maintained in South
Carolina (hereafter referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure SIP submission’’). With
the exception of provisions pertaining to
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) permitting, interstate transport,
and visibility protection requirements,
EPA is proposing to determine that
South Carolina’s infrastructure SIP
submission, provided to EPA on July 17,
2012, addresses the required
infrastructure elements for the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 22,
2014.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
ADDRESSES:
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 5, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014–20032 Filed 8–21–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0694; FRL–9915–64–
Region 4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; South Carolina;
Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the July 17, 2012, State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control (SC DHEC)
for inclusion into the South Carolina
SIP. This proposal pertains to the Clean
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2012–0694, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0694,’’ Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s 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 No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0694. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49731-49736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20032]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0522; FRL-9915-48-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever
new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are
promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is
required to address basic program elements including, but not limited
to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and
adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of
the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure
requirements. The Commonwealth of Virginia has made a submittal
addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 22,
2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0522 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-2014-0522, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division,
Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0522. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
[[Page 49732]]
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 23, 2014, the Commonwealth of
Virginia through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ) submitted a revision to the Commonwealth's SIP to satisfy the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
I. Background
On June 22, 2010, (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS
for the 1-hour primary SO2 at a level of 75 parts per
billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile
of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS. Specifically,
Section 110(a)(1) requires states to submit SIPs meeting the applicable
requirements of Section 110(a)(2) within three years following the
promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may
prescribe, and Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address specific
elements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority
that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly
established or revised NAAQS. The contents of a submission may vary
depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and
analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits
the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
On June 23, 2014, VADEQ provided a SIP revision to satisfy certain
Section 110(a)(2) requirements of the CAA for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. This revision addressed the following infrastructure elements
which EPA is proposing to approve: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant deterioration), (D)(ii), (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation, public notification, and
prevention of significant deterioration), (K), (L), and (M). A detailed
summary of EPA's review and rationale for approving Virginia's
submittal may be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this
rulemaking action which is available on line at www.regulations.gov,
Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0522.
This rulemaking action does not include any proposed action on
Section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, because this element is not
required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of CAA
Section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a separate process. This
rulemaking action also does not include proposed action on Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA because Virginia's submittal did not
include a submittal for this element; therefore, EPA will take later,
separate action on Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS for Virginia. At this time, EPA is not proposing
action on Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) or (J) for visibility protection
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Although Virginia's infrastructure
SIP submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS referred to Virginia's
regional haze SIP for addressing requirements in Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J) for visibility protection, EPA intends to
take separate action on Virginia's submittal for these elements at a
later date as explained in the TSD. Finally, EPA will take later,
separate action with respect to Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) regarding CAA
Section 128 requirements for State Boards for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action.
III. EPA's Approach To Review Infrastructure SIPs
EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Virginia that addresses
the infrastructure requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a
SIP submission of this type arises out of Section 110(a)(1). Pursuant
to Section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and (2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of CAA Section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions and Section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in Section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in Section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of
[[Page 49733]]
required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in
Section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for
inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; Section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
Section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some Section 110(a)(1) and Section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that Section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\2\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, Section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and Section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\3\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of Section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine which provisions of Section 110(a)(2) are applicable
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of Section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus Section 110(a)(2)(I)).
\3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within Section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that Section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example of ambiguity within Section 110(a)(1) and (2) with
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all
of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and
whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action.
Although Section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet
these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make
multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP
elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect
to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined
action.\4\ Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action
on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire
submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure
SIP submission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
\5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other Section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambiguities within Section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with
respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of Section 110(a)(2)
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP
submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example,
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of Section 110(a)(2)(B)
could be very different for different pollutants, for example because
the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to
meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS
than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that interpretation of Section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of Section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, Section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of Section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and Section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of Section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program
required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to
a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus
subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates,
each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of Section
110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of Section 110(a)(1) and Section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of Section 110(a)(1)
and Section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in Section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\7\ EPA
most recently
[[Page 49734]]
issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013
Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-
date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS.
Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
Section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.\9\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of Section
110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets Section 110(a)(1) and (2) such
that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and
need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure
SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions
of Section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
\8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
\9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the DC Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example, Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
Section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of Section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and Section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that
there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately
address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the
structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program
(e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-
member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are
addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of Section 128 are
necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP
submissions because Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that
the state satisfy the provisions of Section 128.
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in Section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including
Green House Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of
complete permit applications with respect to the 2013 PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of
provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure
SIP action.
For other Section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, Section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether
the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the
context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (SSM); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR
Reform). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\10\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of Section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in Section 110(a)(2) as requiring
review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against
all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a
[[Page 49735]]
better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those
elements of Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a
specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS
or other factors.
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and
mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\11\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\12\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in Section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that Section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
\12\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA Section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009)
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
\13\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
Section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the following elements of Virginia's
June 23, 2014 SIP revision for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS: Section
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant
deterioration), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J)
(consultation, public notification, and prevention of significant
deterioration), (K), (L), and (M). Virginia's SIP revision provides the
basic program elements specified in Section 110(a)(2) necessary to
implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. This
proposed rulemaking action does not include action on Section
110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the nonattainment planning requirements
of part D, Title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to
be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of Section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA, and will be addressed in a separate process. Additionally, EPA
will take later, separate action on Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
(interstate transport of emissions), (D)(i)(II) (visibility
protection), (J) (visibility protection) and (E)(ii) (Section 128,
``State Boards'') for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as discussed above
and in the TSD. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.
V. 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
[[Page 49736]]
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.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, which satisfies certain
infrastructure requirements of Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS for the Commonwealth of Virginia, does not
have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 5, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014-20032 Filed 8-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
