Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Source-Specific Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations for 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 67196-67200 [2019-26403]
Download as PDF
67196
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED ILLINOIS SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Order/permit
No.
Name of source
*
*
Exelon Generation, LLC .....
*
*
*
*
PCB 16–106
*
*
*
9/13/2016
*
*
EPA approval date
*
*
*
*
section for
additional availability information.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
INFORMATION CONTACT
Emlyn Ve´lez-Rosa, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air &
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. The telephone number is (215)
814–2038. Ms. Ve´lez-Rosa can also be
reached via electronic mail at velezrosa.emlyn@epa.gov.
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0277; FRL–10002–
86–Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Source-Specific Reasonably Available
Control Technology Determinations for
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On August 1, 2019 (84 FR 37607),
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Commonwealth of Virginia. In the
Agency (EPA).
NPRM, EPA proposed approval of three
separate SIP revisions from Virginia
ACTION: Final rule.
addressing RACT under the CAA for the
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 2008 ozone NAAQS for three facilities
Agency (EPA) is approving three state
in Northern Virginia. The formal SIP
implementation plan (SIP) revisions
revisions were submitted by the Virginia
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Department of Environmental Quality
Virginia. These revisions address
(VADEQ) on February 1, 14, and 15,
reasonably available control technology 2019 and address the following
(RACT) requirements under the 2008
facilities: Possum Point Power Station,
ozone national ambient air quality
Covanta Fairfax, and Covanta
standard (NAAQS) for three facilities in Alexandria/Arlington.
Northern Virginia through sourceRACT is important for reducing
specific determinations. This action is
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile
being taken under the Clean Air Act
organic compounds (VOC) emissions
(CAA).
from major stationary sources within
DATES: This final rule is effective on
areas not meeting the ozone NAAQS.
January 8, 2020.
Since the 1970’s, EPA has consistently
defined ‘‘RACT’’ as the lowest emission
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
limit that a particular source is capable
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0277. All of meeting by the application of the
control technology that is reasonably
documents in the docket are listed on
available considering technological and
the https://www.regulations.gov
economic feasibility.1 RACT is
website. Although listed in the index,
applicable
to ozone nonattainment areas
some information is not publicly
which are classified as moderate or
available, e.g., confidential business
above, or any areas located within the
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Ozone Transport Region (OTR). General
RACT requirements are set forth in
Certain other material, such as
section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, while
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
1 See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger
available only in hard copy form.
Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste
Publicly available docket materials are
Management, to Regional Administrators,
available through https://
‘‘Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,’’ and also 44
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER FR 53762; September 17, 1979.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Dec 06, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Comments
*
*
*
12/09/2019, [insert Federal Register citation].
[FR Doc. 2019–26295 Filed 12–6–19; 8:45 am]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
State effective
date
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
ozone specific requirements are found
in sections 182 and 184 of the CAA.
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the
8-hour ozone standards, by lowering the
standard to 0.075 parts per million
(ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period
(2008 ozone NAAQS). See 73 FR 16436.
Under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, only the
Northern portion of Virginia is subject
to RACT due to its location in the OTR,
as there are no moderate nonattainment
areas in Virginia under the standard.
The OTR portion of Virginia consists of
the Arlington County, Fairfax County,
Loudoun County, Prince William
County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City,
Falls Church City, Manassas City,
Manassas Park City, and Strafford
County. The three facilities which are
the subject of this rulemaking action are
located in Northern Virginia.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
Virginia’s February 1, 14, and 15,
2019 SIP revisions address NOX and/or
VOC RACT for the following facilities:
Virginia Electric and Power Company—
Possum Point Power Station, Covanta
Alexandria/Arlington, Inc., and Covanta
Fairfax, Inc. VADEQ is adopting as part
of these SIP revisions additional NOX
control requirements for these three
facilities to meet RACT under the 2008
ozone NAAQS, all of which are
implemented via federally enforceable
permits issued by VADEQ. These RACT
permits, as listed on Table 1, have been
submitted as part of each SIP revision
for EPA’s approval into the Virginia SIP
under 40 CFR 52.2420(d).
Virginia’s source specific RACT
determinations include an evaluation of
NOX and/or VOC controls that are
reasonably available for the affected
emissions units at each facility and its
determination of which control
requirements satisfy RACT. VADEQ
submitted federally enforceable permits
with the purpose of implementing the
requirements of 9VAC5, Chapter 40
(9VAC5–40), sections 7400, 7420, and
7430.
E:\FR\FM\09DER1.SGM
09DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
67197
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
TABLE 1—FACILITIES WITH PROPOSED SOURCE-SPECIFIC RACT DETERMINATIONS
SIP
submittal
date
Facility name
Source type
Facility ID
RACT permit
(effective date)
Virginia Electric and Power
Company—Possum Point
Power Station.
Covanta Fairfax, Inc ...............
Covanta Alexandria/Arlington,
Inc.
Electric generation utility ........
Registration No. 70225 ..........
Permit to Operate (1/31/19) ...
2/1/19
Municipal waste combustor ...
Municipal waste combustor ...
Registration No. 71920 ..........
Registration No. 71895 ..........
Permit to Operate (2/8/19) .....
Permit to Operate (2/8/19) .....
2/14/19
2/15/19
As part of the February 1, 2019 SIP
revision, VADEQ is addressing RACT
for the Possum Point Power Station, an
electrical generation utility (EGU)
facility located in Prince William
County owned and operated by Virginia
Electric and Power Company. This EGU
facility is considered a major source of
NOX and VOC. VADEQ has adopted
additional NOX RACT requirements for
Possum Point Power Station’s electric
generating boiler ES–5 as part of the
facility’s Permit to Operate issued on
January 31, 2019 and included for
approval into the SIP. Given the
potential retirement of boiler ES–5,
VADEQ determined RACT for boiler
ES–5 based on the two possible
operating scenarios: (1) The installation
and operation of selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) by June 1, 2019, in the
scenario that the unit remains
operational after such date; or (2) the
retirement of the unit by June 1, 2021,
in the scenario that the unit is or will
be retired.
As part of the February 1, 2019 SIP
revision, VADEQ also recertified
applicable NOX and VOC controls for
the other two electric generating boilers
(ES–3 and ES–4) at Possum Point Power
Station as well as VOC controls for
boiler ES–5, all of which were
previously approved as RACT on a
source-specific basis. VADEQ also
determined that additional VOC
controls are not economic or technically
feasible for this facility, given the size
and VOC emissions from individual
emissions units.
As part of the February 14, 2019 and
February 15, 2019 SIP revisions,
VADEQ is addressing NOX RACT for
two municipal waste combustion
(MWC) facilities with energy recovery:
Covanta Fairfax, Inc. (Covanta Fairfax)
and Covanta Alexandria/Arlington, Inc.
(Covanta Alexandria/Arlington). These
MWC facilities are located in Lorton, in
Fairfax County and the City of
Alexandria, respectively, and are
considered major sources of NOX.
VADEQ determined the following
control measures as NOX RACT for each
MWC unit at Covanta Fairfax and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Dec 06, 2019
Jkt 250001
Covanta Alexandria/Arlington: the
installation and operation of Covanta’s
proprietary low NOX combustion
system, the operation (and optimization
as needed) of the existing SNCR, a daily
NOX average limit of 110 parts per
million, volumetric dry (ppmvd)
corrected at 7% oxygen (O2), and an
annual NOX average limit of 90 ppmvd
at 7% O2. The NOX RACT control
requirements for the four MWC units at
Covanta Fairfax have been adopted as
part of the facility’s Permit to Operate
issued on February 8, 2019; while those
for the three MWC units at Covanta
Alexandria/Arlington have been
adopted as part of the facility’s Permit
to Operate issued by on February 8,
2019.
EPA believes that VADEQ has
considered and adopted reasonably
available NOX and/or VOC controls for
each of these facilities. EPA finds that
the additional NOX control
requirements adopted by VADEQ in the
respective federally enforceable permits
are adequate to meet RACT for these
sources. EPA also finds that recertification of existing source-specific
requirements for Possum Point Station
is adequate to meet RACT. Further, EPA
determines that the additional NOX
RACT control requirements adopted for
each facility are more stringent than the
applicable SIP-approved NOX RACT
requirements, so that approval of these
permits into the SIP would be consistent
with section 110(l) of the CAA. Other
specific requirements of VADEQ’s
source-specific determinations and the
rationale for EPA’s proposed action are
explained in the NPRM and the related
Technical Support Document (TSD) and
will not be stated here.
III. Public Comments and EPA
Response
EPA received three comments on the
August 1, 2019 NPRM. One comment
EPA considers to not be adverse to this
action and does not require a response.
The other two comments each contend
that EPA should not approve Virginia’s
RACT SIP, alleging effects of this
rulemaking action on nuclear power
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
facilities. A summary of the comments
and EPA’s response is discussed in this
Section. A copy of the comments can be
found in the docket for this rulemaking
action.
Comment: The first commenter claims
that EPA should not approve Virginia’s
RACT SIP determinations because it
would make the State’s nuclear power
plants too expensive and prevent the
development of the State’s commercial
nuclear program.
EPA Response: The commenter did
not indicate how the imposition of
RACT controls on the three facilities
that are the subject of this rulemaking
would negatively affect Virginia’s
nuclear power program. EPA finds that
the subject of the effects of these SIP
revisions on Virginia-based nuclear
power is irrelevant to this rulemaking
action. The SIP revisions addressed in
this rulemaking evaluate air pollution
controls for NOX and VOC at three
facilities in Northern Virginia, none of
which are nuclear power plants.
Comment: The second commenter
claims that Virginia’s RACT
determination for Possum Point lacks
adequate information and that EPA’s
rulemaking action is unsupported,
because EPA ‘‘ignored the fact that at
least a dozen other large power plants
including those of the coal-dependent
Appalachian states of Virginia, West
Virginia, and Kentucky, have similar
nuclear waste storage capacity.’’ The
commenter also argues that EPA needs
to evaluate ‘‘the cost of other utilities
and other power generating utilities
when forcing costly controls on plants
such as this’’ as well as ‘‘the increased
cost of ratepayers when forcing states to
evaluate expensive controls on publicly
owned utilities like in Virginia.’’
EPA Response: The commenter does
not explain how power plants with
nuclear storage capacity are related to
this rulemaking action, nor identify any
facilities of concern to allow EPA to
further assess this claim. As indicated
earlier, the SIP revisions addressed in
this rulemaking evaluate air pollution
controls for NOX and VOC at three
facilities in Northern Virginia, none of
E:\FR\FM\09DER1.SGM
09DER1
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
67198
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
which are nuclear power plants. In
particular, Possum Point Power Station
is a thermal power plant in which
electricity is produced by converting
heat energy to electrical power through
the combustion of natural gas in
turbines and boilers. In addition to the
topic of nuclear power being irrelevant,
EPA also notes that the commenter does
not provide in its comment which costs
EPA should have evaluated as part of
this rulemaking action and for which
‘‘utilities’’ this was needed.
EPA disagrees with the assertions that
Virginia’s RACT determination for
Possum Point lacks adequate
information and that EPA’s proposed
rulemaking action to approve this
determination is unsupported. The
commenter provided no new or
additional data for EPA to evaluate in
support of its allegations and does not
explain how ‘‘increased cost to the rate
payer’’ should be evaluated as a factor
beyond the statutory and regulatory
factors EPA cited in the TSD for
establishing RACT. EPA continues to
rely upon the data cited in the NPRM
and in the statutory and regulatory
factors established for evaluating RACT.
See, e.g., International Fabricare
Institute v. E.P.A., 972 F.2d 384 (D.C.
Cir. 1992). (The Administrative
Procedures Act does not require that
EPA change its decision based on
‘‘comments consisting of little more
than assertions that in the opinions of
the commenters the agency got it
wrong,’’ when submitted with no
accompanying data.) As set forth in the
NPRM, EPA has determined that the
February 1, 2019 SIP revision includes
adequate information to support
Virginia’s RACT determination for this
facility. As part of the February 1, 2019
SIP revision, the Commonwealth of
Virginia evaluated the technical and
economic feasibility of installing and
operating additional air pollution
control devices of NOX and/or VOC for
each emissions unit at Possum Point.
EPA believes that the Commonwealth
provided sufficient assurances as part of
the February 1, 2019 SIP revision to
support its source-specific RACT
determination for Possum Point.
EPA’s evaluation of Virginia’s
February 1, 2019 SIP revision and the
rationale for taking rulemaking action
on this submission was discussed in
detail in the NPRM and accompanying
TSD. EPA’s decision to approve the
RACT determination for Possum Point
based on that information is not
changed by these unsupported
comments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Dec 06, 2019
Jkt 250001
IV. Final Action
EPA finds that Virginia’s SIP revisions
submitted on February 1, 14, and 15,
2019 addressing source-specific RACT
for Possum Point Power Station,
Covanta Fairfax, and Covanta
Alexandria/Arlington, are adequate to
meet RACT requirements set forth under
the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
EPA is approving the February 1, 14,
and 15, 2019 submittals as revisions to
the Commonwealth of Virginia SIP to
satisfy sections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2)(C),
182(f), and 184(b)(1)(B) for
implementation of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
by reference of three federally
enforceable permits, each addressing
NOX and/or VOC RACT under the 2008
ozone NAAQS for a major NOX and/or
VOC source as discussed in section II of
this preamble. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials
E:\FR\FM\09DER1.SGM
09DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region III Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
SIP, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking
of EPA’s approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.2
VII. 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• 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
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
2 62
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Dec 06, 2019
Jkt 250001
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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land as defined
in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area
where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because
this is a rule of particular applicability,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67199
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 February 7, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action
addressing source-specific RACT under
the 2008 ozone NAAQS for three
facilities in Northern Virginia, 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,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: November 20, 2019.
Cosmo Servidio,
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
2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(d) is amended by adding entries for
‘‘Virginia Electric and Power Company
(VEPCO)—Possum Point Power
Station’’, ‘‘Covanta Alexandria/
Arlington, Inc.’’, and ‘‘Covanta Fairfax,
Inc.’’ at the end of the table to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.2420
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
E:\FR\FM\09DER1.SGM
09DER1
*
*
67200
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Permit/order
or registration
No.
Source name
*
*
*
Virginia Electric and Power
Registration No. 70225 ..........
Company (VEPCO)—Possum Point Power Station.
Covanta Alexandria/Arlington,
Registration No. 71920 ..........
Inc.
Covanta Fairfax, Inc ............... Registration No. 71895 ..........
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–26403 Filed 12–6–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[EPA–R05–OAR–2018–0285; FRL–10002–
80–Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Title V
Operation Permit Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving updates and
revisions to the Wisconsin title V
Operation Permit Program, submitted by
Wisconsin pursuant to subchapter V of
the Clean Air Act (Act). The revisions
were submitted to update the title V
program since the final approval of the
program in 2001 and to change the
permit fee schedule for subject facilities.
The revisions consist of amendments to
Department of Natural Resources NR
Chapter 407 Wisconsin Administrative
Code, operation permits, Chapter NR
410 Wisconsin Administrative Code,
permit fees, and Wisconsin statute
285.69, fee structure. This approval
action will help ensure that Wisconsin
properly implements the requirements
of title V of the Act.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
January 8, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2018–0285. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information
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
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Dec 06, 2019
Jkt 250001
State effective
date
EPA approval date
*
01/31/19
*
12/09/19, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
02/14/19
12/09/19, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
12/09/19, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
02/08/19
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either through
www.regulations.gov or at the EPA,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Susan
Kraj, Environmental Engineer, at (312)
353–2654 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Kraj, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 353–2654, kraj.susan@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Review of Wisconsin’s Submittal
II. What is our response to comments
received on the proposed rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Review of Wisconsin’s Submittal
This final rulemaking addresses the
request EPA received on March 8, 2017,
from the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) for approval
of revisions and updates to Wisconsin’s
title V operating permit program.
Pursuant to subchapter V of the Act,
generally known as title V, and the
implementing regulations, at 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, states
developed and submitted to EPA for
approval, programs for issuing operation
permits to all major stationary sources.
EPA promulgated interim approval of
Wisconsin’s title V operating permit
program on March 6, 1995 (60 FR
12128). In 2001, WDNR submitted
corrections to the interim approval
issues identified in the 1995 interim
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40 CFR part 52 citation
*
*
§ 52.2420(d); RACT for 2008
ozone NAAQS.
§ 52.2420(d); RACT for 2008
ozone NAAQS.
§ 52.2420(d); RACT for 2008
ozone NAAQS.
approval action as well as additional
program revisions and updates. EPA
took action to approve the corrections to
the interim approval issues and
promulgated final approval of the
Wisconsin title V program on December
4, 2001 (66 FR 62951).
Wisconsin is seeking approval of
changes and updates made to its title V
program since the 1995 and 2001
approvals. EPA received WDNR’s
submittal updating its title V operating
permit program on March 8, 2017, and
supplemental information on January
26, 2018 (submittal). WDNR’s submittal
contains two sections, Part 1 and Part 2.
Part 1 contains previously approved
program elements which are included
for informational purposes, as well as
minor clarifications and corrections,
which were included in WDNR’s 2001
submittal, but which EPA did not act on
or approve in the 2001 approval.
Part 2 contains title V program
revisions and updates since Wisconsin’s
program was approved in 2001. Part 2
of the submittal contains section I—
Additional State Rule Changes and
Updates to the Regulations, and section
II—Permit Fee Demonstration.
EPA is addressing the changes and
updates in WDNR’s submittal that have
not been previously approved by EPA.
This includes the changes in Part 1,
Section IX (Other Changes—Minor
Clarifications and Corrections), as well
as the changes in Part 2, both sections
I and II, of WDNR’s submittal that relate
to the Federal title V program at 40 CFR
part 70. EPA finds that the program
revisions and updates in WDNR’s
submittal have satisfactorily addressed
the requirements of part 70, and EPA is
therefore approving this submittal.
II. What is our response to comments
received on the proposed rulemaking?
EPA published a direct final rule
approving Wisconsin’s submittal on July
31, 2019 (84 FR 37104) along with a
proposed rule that was also published
on July 31, 2019 (84 FR 37194). In this
proposed rule we stated that if we
E:\FR\FM\09DER1.SGM
09DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67196-67200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26403]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0277; FRL-10002-86-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Source-Specific Reasonably Available Control Technology
Determinations for 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving three
state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth
of Virginia. These revisions address reasonably available control
technology (RACT) requirements under the 2008 ozone national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) for three facilities in Northern Virginia
through source-specific determinations. This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 8, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0277. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emlyn V[eacute]lez-Rosa, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2038. Ms. V[eacute]lez-Rosa can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On August 1, 2019 (84 FR 37607), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA
proposed approval of three separate SIP revisions from Virginia
addressing RACT under the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for three
facilities in Northern Virginia. The formal SIP revisions were
submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ)
on February 1, 14, and 15, 2019 and address the following facilities:
Possum Point Power Station, Covanta Fairfax, and Covanta Alexandria/
Arlington.
RACT is important for reducing oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from major stationary
sources within areas not meeting the ozone NAAQS. Since the 1970's, EPA
has consistently defined ``RACT'' as the lowest emission limit that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of the
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility.\1\ RACT is applicable to ozone
nonattainment areas which are classified as moderate or above, or any
areas located within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). General RACT
requirements are set forth in section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, while ozone
specific requirements are found in sections 182 and 184 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,'' and also 44 FR 53762;
September 17, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone standards, by
lowering the standard to 0.075 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an
8-hour period (2008 ozone NAAQS). See 73 FR 16436. Under the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, only the Northern portion of Virginia is subject to RACT due to
its location in the OTR, as there are no moderate nonattainment areas
in Virginia under the standard. The OTR portion of Virginia consists of
the Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William
County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas
City, Manassas Park City, and Strafford County. The three facilities
which are the subject of this rulemaking action are located in Northern
Virginia.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
Virginia's February 1, 14, and 15, 2019 SIP revisions address
NOX and/or VOC RACT for the following facilities: Virginia
Electric and Power Company--Possum Point Power Station, Covanta
Alexandria/Arlington, Inc., and Covanta Fairfax, Inc. VADEQ is adopting
as part of these SIP revisions additional NOX control
requirements for these three facilities to meet RACT under the 2008
ozone NAAQS, all of which are implemented via federally enforceable
permits issued by VADEQ. These RACT permits, as listed on Table 1, have
been submitted as part of each SIP revision for EPA's approval into the
Virginia SIP under 40 CFR 52.2420(d).
Virginia's source specific RACT determinations include an
evaluation of NOX and/or VOC controls that are reasonably
available for the affected emissions units at each facility and its
determination of which control requirements satisfy RACT. VADEQ
submitted federally enforceable permits with the purpose of
implementing the requirements of 9VAC5, Chapter 40 (9VAC5-40), sections
7400, 7420, and 7430.
[[Page 67197]]
Table 1--Facilities With Proposed Source-Specific RACT Determinations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RACT permit SIP submittal
Facility name Source type Facility ID (effective date) date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Electric and Power Electric generation Registration No. Permit to Operate 2/1/19
Company--Possum Point Power utility. 70225. (1/31/19).
Station.
Covanta Fairfax, Inc............. Municipal waste Registration No. Permit to Operate 2/14/19
combustor. 71920. (2/8/19).
Covanta Alexandria/Arlington, Inc Municipal waste Registration No. Permit to Operate 2/15/19
combustor. 71895. (2/8/19).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the February 1, 2019 SIP revision, VADEQ is addressing
RACT for the Possum Point Power Station, an electrical generation
utility (EGU) facility located in Prince William County owned and
operated by Virginia Electric and Power Company. This EGU facility is
considered a major source of NOX and VOC. VADEQ has adopted
additional NOX RACT requirements for Possum Point Power
Station's electric generating boiler ES-5 as part of the facility's
Permit to Operate issued on January 31, 2019 and included for approval
into the SIP. Given the potential retirement of boiler ES-5, VADEQ
determined RACT for boiler ES-5 based on the two possible operating
scenarios: (1) The installation and operation of selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) by June 1, 2019, in the scenario that the
unit remains operational after such date; or (2) the retirement of the
unit by June 1, 2021, in the scenario that the unit is or will be
retired.
As part of the February 1, 2019 SIP revision, VADEQ also
recertified applicable NOX and VOC controls for the other
two electric generating boilers (ES-3 and ES-4) at Possum Point Power
Station as well as VOC controls for boiler ES-5, all of which were
previously approved as RACT on a source-specific basis. VADEQ also
determined that additional VOC controls are not economic or technically
feasible for this facility, given the size and VOC emissions from
individual emissions units.
As part of the February 14, 2019 and February 15, 2019 SIP
revisions, VADEQ is addressing NOX RACT for two municipal
waste combustion (MWC) facilities with energy recovery: Covanta
Fairfax, Inc. (Covanta Fairfax) and Covanta Alexandria/Arlington, Inc.
(Covanta Alexandria/Arlington). These MWC facilities are located in
Lorton, in Fairfax County and the City of Alexandria, respectively, and
are considered major sources of NOX. VADEQ determined the
following control measures as NOX RACT for each MWC unit at
Covanta Fairfax and Covanta Alexandria/Arlington: the installation and
operation of Covanta's proprietary low NOX combustion
system, the operation (and optimization as needed) of the existing
SNCR, a daily NOX average limit of 110 parts per million,
volumetric dry (ppmvd) corrected at 7% oxygen (O2), and an
annual NOX average limit of 90 ppmvd at 7% O2.
The NOX RACT control requirements for the four MWC units at
Covanta Fairfax have been adopted as part of the facility's Permit to
Operate issued on February 8, 2019; while those for the three MWC units
at Covanta Alexandria/Arlington have been adopted as part of the
facility's Permit to Operate issued by on February 8, 2019.
EPA believes that VADEQ has considered and adopted reasonably
available NOX and/or VOC controls for each of these
facilities. EPA finds that the additional NOX control
requirements adopted by VADEQ in the respective federally enforceable
permits are adequate to meet RACT for these sources. EPA also finds
that re-certification of existing source-specific requirements for
Possum Point Station is adequate to meet RACT. Further, EPA determines
that the additional NOX RACT control requirements adopted
for each facility are more stringent than the applicable SIP-approved
NOX RACT requirements, so that approval of these permits
into the SIP would be consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA. Other
specific requirements of VADEQ's source-specific determinations and the
rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and the
related Technical Support Document (TSD) and will not be stated here.
III. Public Comments and EPA Response
EPA received three comments on the August 1, 2019 NPRM. One comment
EPA considers to not be adverse to this action and does not require a
response. The other two comments each contend that EPA should not
approve Virginia's RACT SIP, alleging effects of this rulemaking action
on nuclear power facilities. A summary of the comments and EPA's
response is discussed in this Section. A copy of the comments can be
found in the docket for this rulemaking action.
Comment: The first commenter claims that EPA should not approve
Virginia's RACT SIP determinations because it would make the State's
nuclear power plants too expensive and prevent the development of the
State's commercial nuclear program.
EPA Response: The commenter did not indicate how the imposition of
RACT controls on the three facilities that are the subject of this
rulemaking would negatively affect Virginia's nuclear power program.
EPA finds that the subject of the effects of these SIP revisions on
Virginia-based nuclear power is irrelevant to this rulemaking action.
The SIP revisions addressed in this rulemaking evaluate air pollution
controls for NOX and VOC at three facilities in Northern
Virginia, none of which are nuclear power plants.
Comment: The second commenter claims that Virginia's RACT
determination for Possum Point lacks adequate information and that
EPA's rulemaking action is unsupported, because EPA ``ignored the fact
that at least a dozen other large power plants including those of the
coal-dependent Appalachian states of Virginia, West Virginia, and
Kentucky, have similar nuclear waste storage capacity.'' The commenter
also argues that EPA needs to evaluate ``the cost of other utilities
and other power generating utilities when forcing costly controls on
plants such as this'' as well as ``the increased cost of ratepayers
when forcing states to evaluate expensive controls on publicly owned
utilities like in Virginia.''
EPA Response: The commenter does not explain how power plants with
nuclear storage capacity are related to this rulemaking action, nor
identify any facilities of concern to allow EPA to further assess this
claim. As indicated earlier, the SIP revisions addressed in this
rulemaking evaluate air pollution controls for NOX and VOC
at three facilities in Northern Virginia, none of
[[Page 67198]]
which are nuclear power plants. In particular, Possum Point Power
Station is a thermal power plant in which electricity is produced by
converting heat energy to electrical power through the combustion of
natural gas in turbines and boilers. In addition to the topic of
nuclear power being irrelevant, EPA also notes that the commenter does
not provide in its comment which costs EPA should have evaluated as
part of this rulemaking action and for which ``utilities'' this was
needed.
EPA disagrees with the assertions that Virginia's RACT
determination for Possum Point lacks adequate information and that
EPA's proposed rulemaking action to approve this determination is
unsupported. The commenter provided no new or additional data for EPA
to evaluate in support of its allegations and does not explain how
``increased cost to the rate payer'' should be evaluated as a factor
beyond the statutory and regulatory factors EPA cited in the TSD for
establishing RACT. EPA continues to rely upon the data cited in the
NPRM and in the statutory and regulatory factors established for
evaluating RACT. See, e.g., International Fabricare Institute v.
E.P.A., 972 F.2d 384 (D.C. Cir. 1992). (The Administrative Procedures
Act does not require that EPA change its decision based on ``comments
consisting of little more than assertions that in the opinions of the
commenters the agency got it wrong,'' when submitted with no
accompanying data.) As set forth in the NPRM, EPA has determined that
the February 1, 2019 SIP revision includes adequate information to
support Virginia's RACT determination for this facility. As part of the
February 1, 2019 SIP revision, the Commonwealth of Virginia evaluated
the technical and economic feasibility of installing and operating
additional air pollution control devices of NOX and/or VOC
for each emissions unit at Possum Point. EPA believes that the
Commonwealth provided sufficient assurances as part of the February 1,
2019 SIP revision to support its source-specific RACT determination for
Possum Point.
EPA's evaluation of Virginia's February 1, 2019 SIP revision and
the rationale for taking rulemaking action on this submission was
discussed in detail in the NPRM and accompanying TSD. EPA's decision to
approve the RACT determination for Possum Point based on that
information is not changed by these unsupported comments.
IV. Final Action
EPA finds that Virginia's SIP revisions submitted on February 1,
14, and 15, 2019 addressing source-specific RACT for Possum Point Power
Station, Covanta Fairfax, and Covanta Alexandria/Arlington, are
adequate to meet RACT requirements set forth under the CAA for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving the February 1, 14, and 15, 2019
submittals as revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia SIP to satisfy
sections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2)(C), 182(f), and 184(b)(1)(B) for
implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
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 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. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of three
federally enforceable permits, each addressing NOX and/or
VOC RACT under the 2008 ozone NAAQS for a major NOX and/or
VOC source as discussed in section II of this preamble. EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials
[[Page 67199]]
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region
III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
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 February 7, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action addressing source-specific RACT under the 2008
ozone NAAQS for three facilities in Northern Virginia, 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, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 20, 2019.
Cosmo Servidio,
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
0
2. In Sec. 52.2420, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding
entries for ``Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO)--Possum Point
Power Station'', ``Covanta Alexandria/Arlington, Inc.'', and ``Covanta
Fairfax, Inc.'' at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
[[Page 67200]]
EPA-Approved Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit/order or State 40 CFR part 52
Source name registration No. effective date EPA approval date citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Virginia Electric and Power Registration No. 01/31/19 12/09/19, [Insert Sec. 52.2420(d);
Company (VEPCO)--Possum Point 70225. Federal Register RACT for 2008
Power Station. citation]. ozone NAAQS.
Covanta Alexandria/Arlington, Inc Registration No. 02/14/19 12/09/19, [Insert Sec. 52.2420(d);
71920. Federal Register RACT for 2008
citation]. ozone NAAQS.
Covanta Fairfax, Inc............. Registration No. 02/08/19 12/09/19, [Insert Sec. 52.2420(d);
71895. Federal Register RACT for 2008
citation]. ozone NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-26403 Filed 12-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P