Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Negative Declarations Certification for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas Control Techniques Guidelines, 8868-8872 [2021-02594]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8868
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX A TO PART 11—FEE
SCHEDULE FOR FY 2021—Continued
State
County
Wyoming ............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Dodge ................
Door ...................
Douglas .............
Dunn ..................
Eau Claire .........
Florence ............
Fond du Lac ......
Forest ................
Grant .................
Green ................
Green Lake .......
Iowa ...................
Iron ....................
Jackson .............
Jefferson ............
Juneau ..............
Kenosha ............
Kewaunee .........
La Crosse ..........
Lafayette ............
Langlade ............
Lincoln ...............
Manitowoc .........
Marathon ...........
Marinette ...........
Marquette ..........
Menominee ........
Milwaukee .........
Monroe ..............
Oconto ...............
Oneida ...............
Outagamie .........
Ozaukee ............
Pepin .................
Pierce ................
Polk ...................
Portage ..............
Price ..................
Racine ...............
Richland ............
Rock ..................
Rusk ..................
Sauk ..................
Sawyer ..............
Shawano ...........
Sheboygan ........
St. Croix ............
Taylor ................
Trempealeau .....
Vernon ...............
Vilas ...................
Walworth ...........
Washburn ..........
Washington .......
Waukesha .........
Waupaca ...........
Waushara ..........
Winnebago ........
Wood .................
Albany ...............
Big Horn ............
Campbell ...........
Carbon ...............
Converse ...........
Crook .................
Fremont .............
Goshen ..............
Hot Springs .......
Johnson .............
Laramie .............
Lincoln ...............
Natrona ..............
Niobrara .............
Park ...................
Platte .................
Sheridan ............
Sublette .............
Sweetwater ........
Teton .................
Uinta ..................
18:50 Feb 09, 2021
APPENDIX A TO PART 11—FEE
SCHEDULE FOR FY 2021—Continued
Fee/acre/yr
153.71
125.12
51.58
94.72
120.12
66.47
191.35
63.81
124.07
142.74
150.45
127.94
89.45
99.95
161.87
97.42
199.24
147.82
131.17
157.21
86.06
85.25
179.49
124.96
101.97
109.84
45.66
234.83
104.34
109.58
106.92
189.56
172.39
101.90
121.52
93.03
107.84
64.68
202.06
88.27
173.31
65.36
110.65
68.20
122.62
173.44
123.31
77.20
104.11
102.16
155.53
182.36
82.27
185.51
144.85
118.78
111.29
183.36
87.09
10.52
22.87
8.14
7.91
7.61
14.09
18.33
12.40
8.94
8.46
12.20
26.31
6.53
9.02
21.50
12.63
17.61
23.76
4.26
58.27
15.43
Jkt 253001
State
County
Fee/acre/yr
Washakie ...........
Weston ..............
16.82
9.63
[FR Doc. 2021–02570 Filed 2–9–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0283; FRL–10016–
88–Region 3]
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: Erin
Trouba, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. The telephone
number is (215) 814–2023. Ms. Trouba
can also be reached via electronic mail
at Trouba.Erin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 16, 2020 (85 FR 43187), EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining to part of
a SIP submittal from the Commonwealth
of Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed
approval of negative declarations for
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
certain specified CTGs, including the
Agency (EPA).
2016 Oil and Gas CTG, as well as a
number of other negative declarations
ACTION: Final rule.
for ACTs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.1
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Virginia’s negative declarations cover
Agency (EPA) is approving a portion of
the Northern Virginia area that was
a state implementation plan (SIP)
designated nonattainment for the 2008
revision submitted by the
ozone NAAQS and/or included as part
Commonwealth of Virginia. The portion of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) by
for approval consists of negative
CAA section 184(a).2 The SIP revision
declarations for certain specified
that EPA is taking final action to
Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG),
approve in this action was submitted to
including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas
EPA by the Virginia Department of
CTG (2016 Oil and Gas CTG), as well as Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on
a number of other negative declarations
April 2, 2020. For additional
for Alternative Control Techniques
information on the scope of the SIP
(ACTs) for the 2008 ozone National
submittal and the specific CTGs and
Ambient Air Quality Standard
ACTs for which VADEQ submitted a
(NAAQS). The negative declarations
negative declaration, please see the
cover only those CTGs or ACTs for
NPRM.
which there are no sources subject to
The CAA regulates emissions of
those CTGs or ACTs located in the
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and VOCs to
prevent photochemical reactions that
Northern Virginia Volatile Organic
result in ozone formation. Reasonably
Compound (VOC) Emissions Control
available control technology (RACT) is a
Area. EPA is approving these revisions
strategy for reducing NOX and VOC
to the Virginia SIP in accordance with
emissions from stationary sources
the requirements of the Clean Air Act
within areas not meeting the ozone
(CAA).
NAAQS, and for areas within the OTR.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
EPA has consistently defined RACT as
March 12, 2021.
the lowest emission limit that a
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
particular source is capable of meeting
docket for this action under Docket ID
by the application of the control
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0283. All technology that is reasonably available
documents in the docket are listed on
considering technological and economic
the https://www.regulations.gov
feasibility. CTGs and ACTs form
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
1 See the NPRM for the list of negative
available, e.g., confidential business
declarations that the Commonwealth submitted for
Northern Virginia, and which EPA is acting on here.
information (CBI) or other information
2 The Northern Virginia area consists of Arlington
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince
Certain other material, such as
William County, Stafford County, Alexandria City,
copyrighted material, is not placed on
Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and
the internet and will be publicly
Manassas Park City.
Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Negative
Declarations Certification for the 2008
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Including the 2016 Oil and
Natural Gas Control Techniques
Guidelines
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10FER1.SGM
10FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
important components of the guidance
that EPA provides to states for making
RACT determinations. CTGs are used to
presumptively define VOC RACT for
applicable source categories of VOCs.
ACTs describe an available range of
control technologies and their
respective cost effectiveness for
particular source categories, but do not
identify any particular option as the
presumptive norm for what is RACT.
On March 6, 2016 (80 FR 12264), EPA
issued a final rule entitled
‘‘Implementation of the 2008 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone: State Implementation Plan
Requirements’’ (2008 Ozone
Implementation Rule). In the preamble
to the final rule, EPA makes clear that
if there are no sources covered by a
specific CTG source category located in
an ozone nonattainment area or an area
in the OTR, the state may submit a
negative declaration for that CTG. 80 FR
12264, 12278.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
In its April 2, 2020 submittal, VADEQ
certified to EPA that the Northern
Virginia area has met all of the CAA
RACT implementation requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including CAA
sections 182(b)(2) and 184(b)(1)(B).
However, this final rule only addresses
section 2.2 of the April 2, 2020
submittal, which contains negative
declarations for certain CTGs and ACTs
in the Northern Virginia area, as
described in the NPRM. EPA notes that
Virginia’s April 2, 2020 SIP submission
also addresses RACT for major sources
of NOX and VOC in the Northern
Virginia area under CAA section
182(b)(2)(C), but that portion of the SIP
submittal is not being addressed in this
action, and will instead be addressed in
a future action taken by EPA.
Table 3 of section 2.2 of the SIP
submittal identifies source categories
subject to CTGs and ACTs for which
Virginia is submitting a negative
declaration stating that there are no
sources located in the Northern Virginia
area subject to these CTGs or ACTs, for
purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As
noted in the NPRM, EPA issued a CTG
for the Oil and Gas Industry in October
of 2016. Because this is a newer CTG,
section 2.2 of the submittal includes a
first-time negative declaration for the
2016 Oil and Gas CTG. Along with the
other negative declarations, VADEQ
asserts that there are no facilities in the
Northern Virginia area that are currently
involved in oil and gas production and
processing activities covered by the
2016 Oil and Gas CTG. The rationale for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:50 Feb 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
EPA’s proposed action is explained in
the NPRM and will not be restated here.
III. EPA’s Response to Comments
Received
EPA received three comments on the
July 16, 2020 NPRM. All comments
received are in the docket for this
action. One comment was generally
supportive of the CAA’s impact on
human health and the environment but
did not specifically address any aspect
of EPA’s proposed action and will
therefore not be addressed here. A
summary of the other two comments
and EPA’s responses are provided
herein.
Comment 1: The Commenter asserts
that EPA should not approve Virginia’s
negative declarations ‘‘. . . without
review of all possible uses the state
might use these approved declarations,’’
because it may allow the state to ‘‘. . .
skirt more necessary environmental
protections.’’ The Commenter also
appears to claim that EPA’s approval of
Virginia’s negative declarations hinders
development of projects in the state. To
support this claim, the Commenter cites
an unidentified analysis which purports
to show that a solar industry investment
project in Virginia was potentially
blocked by such a declaration. Citing
climate change as an example, the
Commenter further asserts that ‘‘(w)ith
EPA taking an official stance against
projects to protect the environment, we
all stand to lose.’’
Response 1: The Commenter has
misinterpreted the purpose of the
negative declarations, as well as the
scope and impact of EPA’s approval. As
stated in the NPRM, the negative
declarations in Virginia’s April 2, 2020
submittal are related to the provisions of
CAA section 184(b) which require that
states in the OTR, or with areas
included within the OTR, must revise
their SIPs to implement RACT with
respect to all sources of VOC covered by
a CTG document. Because portions of
Virginia are within the OTR, Virginia
must provide a SIP submission to
address RACT for all sources of VOC
covered by a CTG. See NPRM 85 FR
43188, July 16, 2020.
EPA has historically allowed states to
submit a negative declaration for a
particular CTG category if the state finds
that no sources exist in the state, or area,
which would be subject to that CTG.
EPA has addressed the idea of negative
declarations numerous times and for
various NAAQS including in the
General Preamble to the 1990
Amendments,3 the 2006 RACT Q&A
3 ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8869
Memo,4 and the 2008 Ozone
Implementation Rule.5 In each of these
documents, EPA asserted that if no
sources exist in the nonattainment area
for a particular CTG category, the state
would be allowed to submit a negative
declaration SIP revision. This principle
also applies to states and areas in the
OTR.
Nothing in the CAA or EPA’s
implementing rules or guidance
suggests that states must have a SIP
approved regulation for a category of
CTG sources that does not exist in the
state. Should a new source of the type
covered by the existing CTG be
constructed in a state after approval of
a negative declaration, EPA expects the
state to develop a regulation and submit
it to EPA for approval into the SIP in
accordance with the relevant timing
provided for by the CAA. At this time,
because the portion of Northern Virginia
included in the OTR does not have any
sources subject to any of the CTGs listed
in the NPRM, no regulations are
required to be developed and submitted
to EPA for SIP approval for those CTGs.
Also, contrary to commenter’s claim,
the negative declarations will not have
any impact on any proposed
development projects. The negative
declarations neither exempt sources
subject to a CTG from complying with
other provisions of the CAA and
Virginia law which otherwise apply nor
create any new requirements. In
addition, EPA cannot identify any
impact the negative declarations would
have on any proposed solar project as
claimed by the Commenter, and EPA is
unable to evaluate the analysis that the
Commenter references because no
citation is included in the comment.
The Commenter also references a letter
from April 6, 2013 that they sent to
EPA. However, because the commenter
did not identify the matter to which it
applied or the person to whom the letter
was sent, EPA could not locate such a
letter and was therefore unable to
evaluate it.
Comment 2: A second Commenter
also claims that EPA should not approve
Virginia’s negative declarations. First,
the Commenter asserts that Virginia has
no legal authority to make such
declarations. Further, the Commenter
asserts that negative declarations ‘‘. . .
Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 at 13512
(April 16, 1992).
4 ‘‘RACT Qs & As—Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT): Questions and Answers’’
Memorandum from William T. Harnett, May 18,
2006.
5 ‘‘Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State
Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ (80 FR 12263
at 12278 (March 6, 2015)).
E:\FR\FM\10FER1.SGM
10FER1
8870
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
preclude any future development in that
sector . . . unless a new state regulation
is developed and enforced upon the
new sources.’’ Additionally, the
Commenter asserts that the negative
declarations will have a devastating
effect on development, and that they are
contrary to an unidentified Executive
Order ‘‘. . . precluding the government
from imposing new regulations or rules
on the oil and gas industry.’’ Finally, the
Commenter asserts that ‘‘EPA must
revoke this proposed rule and redo its
analysis to show no state laws are being
broken that restrict economic
development and EPA must show that
the rule is in line with the executive
order promoting energy infrastructure
and economic growth.’’
Response 2: First, EPA notes that the
Commenter is incorrect in the assertion
that the Commonwealth of Virginia
lacks the legal authority to make and
submit the negative declarations
proposed for approval in the NPRM.
The CAA establishes a partnership
between state and Federal entities for
the protection and improvement of the
nation’s air quality. Under CAA section
109, EPA is required to establish
NAAQS for certain criteria air
pollutants in order to protect public
health and welfare. Subsequent to the
promulgation or revision of a NAAQS,
states are required by CAA section 110
to adopt and submit to EPA for approval
a SIP which provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS within that
state. This requires that the state have
adequate state law authority to adopt,
implement, and enforce the SIP.
Virginia state law provides such
authorities to the Virginia Air Pollution
Control Board, which was created by the
legislature of Virginia (See Va. Code
Sec. 10.1–1300 through 1332.4). The Air
Pollution Control Board has the broad
authority to, among other things, act
reasonably to achieve and maintain
levels of air quality that will protect
human health, welfare, and safety (Va.
Code Sec. 10.1–1306); ‘‘advise, consult,
and cooperate with agencies of the
United States . . . in furtherance of the
purposes of this chapter’’ (Va. Code Sec.
10.1–1307.A); ‘‘. . . promulgate
regulations, including emergency
regulations, abating, controlling and
prohibiting air pollution throughout or
in any part of the Commonwealth in
accordance with the provisions of the
Administrative Process Act (section 2.2–
4000 et seq.) . . .’’ (Va. Code Sec. 10.1–
1308); enforce the regulations it adopts
(‘‘[a]fter the Board has adopted the
regulations provided for in Va. Code
section 10.1–1308, it shall have the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:50 Feb 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
power to: (i) Initiate and receive
complaints as to air pollution; (ii) hold
or cause to be held hearings and enter
orders diminishing or abating the causes
of air pollution and orders to enforce its
regulations pursuant to Va. Code section
10.1–1309; and (iii) institute legal
proceedings, including suits for
injunctions for the enforcement of its
orders, regulations, and the abatement
and control of air pollution and for the
enforcement of penalties’’ (Va. Code
Sec. 10.1–1307.D)); and issue, revoke,
amend, or deny permits for the issuance
of air pollutants (See Va. Code Sec.
10.1–1322). These authorities provide
the legal basis and authority for the
Virginia Air Pollution Control Board to
submit a negative declaration to EPA
attesting that certain sources covered by
CTGs do not exist in the Northern
Virginia area.
Further, EPA cannot identify, and the
Commenter did not identify, any
conflict with any state law which the
approval of these negative declarations
might create. As discussed previously,
the negative declarations being
approved by this action do not create
any new Virginia law, so no conflict
with existing state law is being created.
The Commenter is also incorrect
about the impact and purpose of
Virginia’s negative declarations. As
discussed in response to Comment 1,
the negative declarations which EPA
proposed to approve in the July 16, 2020
NPRM do not preclude any future
proposal to locate a new source in the
Northern Virginia area that is subject to
a CTG. The sole purpose of these
negative declarations is to certify that at
the time of the declaration, no sources
covered by a particular CTG exist within
the Northern Virginia area. EPA’s
approval of the negative declarations
indicates that the Agency agrees with
the State’s factual determination that no
sources exist in the Northern Virginia
area that are covered by the CTGs and
ACTs listed. This factual determination
does not itself preclude any future
development or limit economic
development because it does not impose
any restrictions on sources or the State.
Regarding the Commenter’s assertion
that the negative declarations are
contrary to an unidentified Executive
Order ‘‘. . . precluding the government
from imposing new regulations or rules
on the oil and gas industry,’’ EPA notes
that the comment does not identify the
Executive Order containing this
prohibition. The Commenter may be
referring to Executive Order 13783
(Promoting Energy Independence and
Economic Growth) from March 28,
2017. Nevertheless, via this action,
neither EPA nor Virginia is adopting or
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
imposing any regulations or rules on the
oil and gas industry. As explained
previously, Virginia is merely stating
that at this time there are no sources in
the Northern Virginia area which are
subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.
For the reasons stated, EPA disagrees
with the commenters and is therefore
finalizing our proposed approval of the
negative declarations in Virginia’s April
2, 2020 submittal.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving that portion of
Virginia’s April 2, 2020 SIP submission
making a negative declaration for the
2016 Oil and Gas CTG, as well as recertifying a number of negative
declarations for certain specified CTGs
and ACTs, in accordance with the SIP
requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, as a revision to the Virginia
SIP.
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
E:\FR\FM\10FER1.SGM
10FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
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 Va. Code 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. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:50 Feb 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 this is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8871
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. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by April 12, 2021. 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 certifies negative
declarations for certain specified CTGs,
including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas
CTG, as well as a number of other
negative declarations for ACTs for the
2008 ozone NAAQS for the Northern
Virginia area and may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
This document of the Environmental
Protection Agency was signed on
November 17, 2020, by Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, pursuant to the
terms of the Consent Decree in Center
for Biological Diversity, et al., v.
Wheeler, Case No. 3:20–cv–00448–VC
(N.D. CA). That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by EPA. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned EPA Official
E:\FR\FM\10FER1.SGM
10FER1
8872
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
re-signs the document for publication,
as an official document of the
Environmental Protection Agency. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Philadelphia, PA, on November
17, 2020 by:
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
Dated: February 3, 2021,
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
Name of non-regulatory SIP
revision
*
*
*
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(e)(1) is amended by adding the entry
for ‘‘CTG Negative Declarations
Certification for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality
Standard’’ at the end of the table to read
as follows:
State
submittal
date
*
04/02/20
EPA approval date
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[WC Docket No. 19–308; FCC 20–152; FRS
17457]
Correction
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
[FR Doc. 2021–02772 Filed 2–8–21; 11:15 am]
The Federal Communications
Commission published a document in
the Federal Register on January 8, 2021,
announcing the elimination of
unbundling and resale requirements
where they stifle technology transitions
and broadband deployment, and the
preservation of unbundling
requirements where they are still
necessary to realize the 1996 Act’s goal
of robust intermodal competition
benefiting all Americans. There is a
typographical error in the rules section
of this document, incorrectly referring
to the heading as ‘‘Availability of DS1
loops’’ when it should read
‘‘Availability of DS3 loops.’’
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:50 Feb 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
In the Federal Register of January 8,
2021, in FR doc. 2020–25254, on page
1674, in the first column, correct the
subject heading for § 51.319(a)(5)(i) to
read: ‘‘Availability of DS3 loops’’.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
AGENCY:
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 63
[WC Docket No. 17–84; DA 20–1241; FRS
17275]
Accelerating Wireline Broadband
Deployment by Removing Barriers to
Infrastructure Investment
Federal Communications
Commission
ACTION: Denial of reconsideration.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Additional
explanation
*
*
*
2/10/21, [insert Federal Reg- Certifies negative declarations
ister citation].
for CTG and ACT source
categories in Northern Virginia, including the 2016 Oil
and Gas CTG.
47 CFR Part 51
Modernizing Unbundling and Resale
Requirements in an Era of NextGeneration Networks and Services;
Correction
*
■
This correction is effective on
February 8, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information, please contact
Megan Danner, Competition Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
at Megan.Danner@fcc.gov, 202–418–
1151.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
*
Subpart VV—Virginia
DATES:
[FR Doc. 2021–02594 Filed 2–9–21; 8:45 am]
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Applicable geographic area
*
*
■
*
*
*
CTG Negative Declarations
Northern Virginia VOC emisCertification for the 2008
sions control area.
Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard.
*
§ 52.2420
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
In this document, the
Wireline Competition Bureau of the
Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) denies Public
Knowledge’s Petition for
Reconsideration of the Wireline
Infrastructure Second Report and Order,
published on July 9, 2018, and
dismisses as moot Public Knowledge’s
companion Motion to Hold in Abeyance
the same Order pending an appeal that
has now been denied.
SUMMARY:
The Commission denies the
petition for reconsideration as of March
12, 2021.
DATES:
Federal Communications
Commission, 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wireline Competition Bureau,
Competition Policy Division, Michele
Levy Berlove, at (202) 418–1477,
michele.berlove@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Wireline Competition
Bureau’s Order on Reconsideration in
WC Docket No. 17–84, adopted October
20, 2020 and released October 20, 2020.
The full text of this document is
available on the Commission’s website
at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/DA-20-1241A1.docx. To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (Braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to FCC504@
fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\10FER1.SGM
10FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8868-8872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02594]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0283; FRL-10016-88-Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Negative Declarations Certification
for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Including the
2016 Oil and Natural Gas Control Techniques Guidelines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The portion for approval consists of negative
declarations for certain specified Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG),
including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG (2016 Oil and Gas CTG), as
well as a number of other negative declarations for Alternative Control
Techniques (ACTs) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The negative declarations cover only those CTGs or
ACTs for which there are no sources subject to those CTGs or ACTs
located in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Emissions Control Area. EPA is approving these revisions to the
Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 12, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0283. 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: Erin Trouba, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The
telephone number is (215) 814-2023. Ms. Trouba can also be reached via
electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 16, 2020 (85 FR 43187), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining to part of a SIP submittal from the
Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of
negative declarations for certain specified CTGs, including the 2016
Oil and Gas CTG, as well as a number of other negative declarations for
ACTs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\ Virginia's negative declarations
cover the Northern Virginia area that was designated nonattainment for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS and/or included as part of the Ozone Transport
Region (OTR) by CAA section 184(a).\2\ The SIP revision that EPA is
taking final action to approve in this action was submitted to EPA by
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on April 2,
2020. For additional information on the scope of the SIP submittal and
the specific CTGs and ACTs for which VADEQ submitted a negative
declaration, please see the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the NPRM for the list of negative declarations that the
Commonwealth submitted for Northern Virginia, and which EPA is
acting on here.
\2\ The Northern Virginia area consists of Arlington County,
Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford
County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas
City, and Manassas Park City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA regulates emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
VOCs to prevent photochemical reactions that result in ozone formation.
Reasonably available control technology (RACT) is a strategy for
reducing NOX and VOC emissions from stationary sources
within areas not meeting the ozone NAAQS, and for areas within the OTR.
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. CTGs and ACTs form
[[Page 8869]]
important components of the guidance that EPA provides to states for
making RACT determinations. CTGs are used to presumptively define VOC
RACT for applicable source categories of VOCs. ACTs describe an
available range of control technologies and their respective cost
effectiveness for particular source categories, but do not identify any
particular option as the presumptive norm for what is RACT.
On March 6, 2016 (80 FR 12264), EPA issued a final rule entitled
``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements'' (2008 Ozone
Implementation Rule). In the preamble to the final rule, EPA makes
clear that if there are no sources covered by a specific CTG source
category located in an ozone nonattainment area or an area in the OTR,
the state may submit a negative declaration for that CTG. 80 FR 12264,
12278.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
In its April 2, 2020 submittal, VADEQ certified to EPA that the
Northern Virginia area has met all of the CAA RACT implementation
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including CAA sections 182(b)(2)
and 184(b)(1)(B). However, this final rule only addresses section 2.2
of the April 2, 2020 submittal, which contains negative declarations
for certain CTGs and ACTs in the Northern Virginia area, as described
in the NPRM. EPA notes that Virginia's April 2, 2020 SIP submission
also addresses RACT for major sources of NOX and VOC in the
Northern Virginia area under CAA section 182(b)(2)(C), but that portion
of the SIP submittal is not being addressed in this action, and will
instead be addressed in a future action taken by EPA.
Table 3 of section 2.2 of the SIP submittal identifies source
categories subject to CTGs and ACTs for which Virginia is submitting a
negative declaration stating that there are no sources located in the
Northern Virginia area subject to these CTGs or ACTs, for purposes of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As noted in the NPRM, EPA issued a CTG for the
Oil and Gas Industry in October of 2016. Because this is a newer CTG,
section 2.2 of the submittal includes a first-time negative declaration
for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. Along with the other negative
declarations, VADEQ asserts that there are no facilities in the
Northern Virginia area that are currently involved in oil and gas
production and processing activities covered by the 2016 Oil and Gas
CTG. The rationale for EPA's proposed action is explained in the NPRM
and will not be restated here.
III. EPA's Response to Comments Received
EPA received three comments on the July 16, 2020 NPRM. All comments
received are in the docket for this action. One comment was generally
supportive of the CAA's impact on human health and the environment but
did not specifically address any aspect of EPA's proposed action and
will therefore not be addressed here. A summary of the other two
comments and EPA's responses are provided herein.
Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that EPA should not approve
Virginia's negative declarations ``. . . without review of all possible
uses the state might use these approved declarations,'' because it may
allow the state to ``. . . skirt more necessary environmental
protections.'' The Commenter also appears to claim that EPA's approval
of Virginia's negative declarations hinders development of projects in
the state. To support this claim, the Commenter cites an unidentified
analysis which purports to show that a solar industry investment
project in Virginia was potentially blocked by such a declaration.
Citing climate change as an example, the Commenter further asserts that
``(w)ith EPA taking an official stance against projects to protect the
environment, we all stand to lose.''
Response 1: The Commenter has misinterpreted the purpose of the
negative declarations, as well as the scope and impact of EPA's
approval. As stated in the NPRM, the negative declarations in
Virginia's April 2, 2020 submittal are related to the provisions of CAA
section 184(b) which require that states in the OTR, or with areas
included within the OTR, must revise their SIPs to implement RACT with
respect to all sources of VOC covered by a CTG document. Because
portions of Virginia are within the OTR, Virginia must provide a SIP
submission to address RACT for all sources of VOC covered by a CTG. See
NPRM 85 FR 43188, July 16, 2020.
EPA has historically allowed states to submit a negative
declaration for a particular CTG category if the state finds that no
sources exist in the state, or area, which would be subject to that
CTG. EPA has addressed the idea of negative declarations numerous times
and for various NAAQS including in the General Preamble to the 1990
Amendments,\3\ the 2006 RACT Q&A Memo,\4\ and the 2008 Ozone
Implementation Rule.\5\ In each of these documents, EPA asserted that
if no sources exist in the nonattainment area for a particular CTG
category, the state would be allowed to submit a negative declaration
SIP revision. This principle also applies to states and areas in the
OTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 at 13512 (April 16, 1992).
\4\ ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT): Questions and Answers'' Memorandum from William T. Harnett,
May 18, 2006.
\5\ ``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements,'' (80
FR 12263 at 12278 (March 6, 2015)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing in the CAA or EPA's implementing rules or guidance suggests
that states must have a SIP approved regulation for a category of CTG
sources that does not exist in the state. Should a new source of the
type covered by the existing CTG be constructed in a state after
approval of a negative declaration, EPA expects the state to develop a
regulation and submit it to EPA for approval into the SIP in accordance
with the relevant timing provided for by the CAA. At this time, because
the portion of Northern Virginia included in the OTR does not have any
sources subject to any of the CTGs listed in the NPRM, no regulations
are required to be developed and submitted to EPA for SIP approval for
those CTGs.
Also, contrary to commenter's claim, the negative declarations will
not have any impact on any proposed development projects. The negative
declarations neither exempt sources subject to a CTG from complying
with other provisions of the CAA and Virginia law which otherwise apply
nor create any new requirements. In addition, EPA cannot identify any
impact the negative declarations would have on any proposed solar
project as claimed by the Commenter, and EPA is unable to evaluate the
analysis that the Commenter references because no citation is included
in the comment. The Commenter also references a letter from April 6,
2013 that they sent to EPA. However, because the commenter did not
identify the matter to which it applied or the person to whom the
letter was sent, EPA could not locate such a letter and was therefore
unable to evaluate it.
Comment 2: A second Commenter also claims that EPA should not
approve Virginia's negative declarations. First, the Commenter asserts
that Virginia has no legal authority to make such declarations.
Further, the Commenter asserts that negative declarations ``. . .
[[Page 8870]]
preclude any future development in that sector . . . unless a new state
regulation is developed and enforced upon the new sources.''
Additionally, the Commenter asserts that the negative declarations will
have a devastating effect on development, and that they are contrary to
an unidentified Executive Order ``. . . precluding the government from
imposing new regulations or rules on the oil and gas industry.''
Finally, the Commenter asserts that ``EPA must revoke this proposed
rule and redo its analysis to show no state laws are being broken that
restrict economic development and EPA must show that the rule is in
line with the executive order promoting energy infrastructure and
economic growth.''
Response 2: First, EPA notes that the Commenter is incorrect in the
assertion that the Commonwealth of Virginia lacks the legal authority
to make and submit the negative declarations proposed for approval in
the NPRM. The CAA establishes a partnership between state and Federal
entities for the protection and improvement of the nation's air
quality. Under CAA section 109, EPA is required to establish NAAQS for
certain criteria air pollutants in order to protect public health and
welfare. Subsequent to the promulgation or revision of a NAAQS, states
are required by CAA section 110 to adopt and submit to EPA for approval
a SIP which provides for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS within that state. This requires that the
state have adequate state law authority to adopt, implement, and
enforce the SIP. Virginia state law provides such authorities to the
Virginia Air Pollution Control Board, which was created by the
legislature of Virginia (See Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1300 through 1332.4).
The Air Pollution Control Board has the broad authority to, among other
things, act reasonably to achieve and maintain levels of air quality
that will protect human health, welfare, and safety (Va. Code Sec.
10.1-1306); ``advise, consult, and cooperate with agencies of the
United States . . . in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter''
(Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1307.A); ``. . . promulgate regulations, including
emergency regulations, abating, controlling and prohibiting air
pollution throughout or in any part of the Commonwealth in accordance
with the provisions of the Administrative Process Act (section 2.2-4000
et seq.) . . .'' (Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1308); enforce the regulations it
adopts (``[a]fter the Board has adopted the regulations provided for in
Va. Code section 10.1-1308, it shall have the power to: (i) Initiate
and receive complaints as to air pollution; (ii) hold or cause to be
held hearings and enter orders diminishing or abating the causes of air
pollution and orders to enforce its regulations pursuant to Va. Code
section 10.1-1309; and (iii) institute legal proceedings, including
suits for injunctions for the enforcement of its orders, regulations,
and the abatement and control of air pollution and for the enforcement
of penalties'' (Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1307.D)); and issue, revoke, amend,
or deny permits for the issuance of air pollutants (See Va. Code Sec.
10.1-1322). These authorities provide the legal basis and authority for
the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board to submit a negative
declaration to EPA attesting that certain sources covered by CTGs do
not exist in the Northern Virginia area.
Further, EPA cannot identify, and the Commenter did not identify,
any conflict with any state law which the approval of these negative
declarations might create. As discussed previously, the negative
declarations being approved by this action do not create any new
Virginia law, so no conflict with existing state law is being created.
The Commenter is also incorrect about the impact and purpose of
Virginia's negative declarations. As discussed in response to Comment
1, the negative declarations which EPA proposed to approve in the July
16, 2020 NPRM do not preclude any future proposal to locate a new
source in the Northern Virginia area that is subject to a CTG. The sole
purpose of these negative declarations is to certify that at the time
of the declaration, no sources covered by a particular CTG exist within
the Northern Virginia area. EPA's approval of the negative declarations
indicates that the Agency agrees with the State's factual determination
that no sources exist in the Northern Virginia area that are covered by
the CTGs and ACTs listed. This factual determination does not itself
preclude any future development or limit economic development because
it does not impose any restrictions on sources or the State.
Regarding the Commenter's assertion that the negative declarations
are contrary to an unidentified Executive Order ``. . . precluding the
government from imposing new regulations or rules on the oil and gas
industry,'' EPA notes that the comment does not identify the Executive
Order containing this prohibition. The Commenter may be referring to
Executive Order 13783 (Promoting Energy Independence and Economic
Growth) from March 28, 2017. Nevertheless, via this action, neither EPA
nor Virginia is adopting or imposing any regulations or rules on the
oil and gas industry. As explained previously, Virginia is merely
stating that at this time there are no sources in the Northern Virginia
area which are subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.
For the reasons stated, EPA disagrees with the commenters and is
therefore finalizing our proposed approval of the negative declarations
in Virginia's April 2, 2020 submittal.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving that portion of Virginia's April 2, 2020 SIP
submission making a negative declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG,
as well as re-certifying a number of negative declarations for certain
specified CTGs and ACTs, in accordance with the SIP requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as a revision to the Virginia SIP.
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
[[Page 8871]]
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 Va. Code 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. 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 this is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' 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. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 12, 2021. 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 certifies negative declarations for certain specified
CTGs, including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG, as well as a number
of other negative declarations for ACTs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for
the Northern Virginia area and may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
This document of the Environmental Protection Agency was signed on
November 17, 2020, by Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, pursuant
to the terms of the Consent Decree in Center for Biological Diversity,
et al., v. Wheeler, Case No. 3:20-cv-00448-VC (N.D. CA). That document
with the original signature and date is maintained by EPA. For
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned EPA Official
[[Page 8872]]
re-signs the document for publication, as an official document of the
Environmental Protection Agency. This administrative process in no way
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Philadelphia, PA, on November 17, 2020 by:
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
Dated: February 3, 2021,
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 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 (e)(1) is amended by adding
the entry for ``CTG Negative Declarations Certification for the 2008
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' at the end of the table
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State Additional
revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
CTG Negative Declarations Northern Virginia 04/02/20 2/10/21, [insert Certifies negative
Certification for the 2008 Ozone VOC emissions Federal Register declarations for
National Ambient Air Quality control area. citation]. CTG and ACT source
Standard. categories in
Northern Virginia,
including the 2016
Oil and Gas CTG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-02594 Filed 2-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
