Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Revised RACT Permit for Roanoke Electric Steel/Steel Dynamics, Inc., 13254-13256 [2021-04705]
Download as PDF
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13254
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
substantially in excess of the underlying
decision in the matter and whether the
Secretary’s demand was or was not
unreasonable. That determination shall
be based upon all the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(c) Awards. The judge presiding over
an EAJA proceeding or the Commission
on review may reduce the amount to be
awarded, or deny any award, to the
extent that the party during the course
of the proceedings engaged in conduct
which unduly and unreasonably
protracted the final resolution of the
matter in controversy.
(1) Awards shall be based on rates
customarily charged by persons engaged
in the business of acting as attorneys,
agents and expert witnesses, even if the
services were made available without
charge or at a reduced rate to the
applicant.
(2) An award for the fee of an attorney
or agent under this part shall not exceed
the hourly rate specified in 5 U.S.C.
504(b)(1)(A), except to account for
inflation since the last update of the
statute’s maximum award upon the
request of the applicant as documented
in the application pursuant to
§ 2204.303. An award to compensate an
expert witness shall not exceed the
highest rate at which the Secretary pays
expert witnesses. However, an award
may include the reasonable expenses of
the attorney, agent or witness as a
separate item, if the attorney, agent or
witness ordinarily charges clients
separately for such expenses.
(3) In determining the reasonableness
of the fee sought for an attorney, agent,
or expert witness, the following shall be
considered:
(i) If the attorney, agent, or witness is
in private practice, his or her customary
fee for similar services, or, if an
employee of the applicant, the fully
allocated cost of the services;
(ii) The prevailing rate for similar
services in the community in which the
attorney, agent, or witness ordinarily
perform services;
(iii) The time actually spent in the
representation of the applicant;
(iv) The time reasonably spent in light
of the difficulty or complexity of the
issues in the proceeding; and
(v) Such other factors as may bear on
the value of the services provided.
(4) The reasonable cost of any study,
analysis, engineering report, test,
project, or similar matter prepared on
behalf of the party may be awarded, to
the extent that the charge for the service
does not exceed the prevailing rate for
similar services, and the study or other
matter was necessary for preparation of
the applicant’s case.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
§ 2204.407
Commission review.
Either the applicant or the Secretary
may seek review of the judge’s decision
on the fee application, and the
Commission may grant such a petition
for review or direct review of the
decision on the Commission’s own
initiative. Review by the Commission
shall be in accordance with §§ 2200.91
and 2200.92 of this chapter.
§ 2204.408
Judicial review.
Judicial review of final decisions on
awards may be sought as provided in 5
U.S.C. 504(c)(2).
§ 2204.409
award.
Stay of decision concerning
Any proceedings on an application for
fees under this part shall be
automatically stayed until the adversary
adjudication has become a final
disposition.
§ 2204.410
Waiver.
After reasonable notice to the parties,
the judge or the Commission may waive,
for good cause shown, any provision
contained in this part as long as the
waiver is consistent with the terms and
purpose of the EAJA.
§ 2204.411
Payment of award.
An applicant seeking payment of an
award shall submit to the officer
designated by the Secretary a copy of
the Commission’s final decision
granting the award, accompanied by a
certification that the applicant will not
seek review of the decision in the
United States courts.
Cynthia L. Attwood,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2021–04140 Filed 3–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7600–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0596; FRL10019–52–
Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Revised
RACT Permit for Roanoke Electric
Steel/Steel Dynamics, Inc.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The revision consists of
amendments to a federally enforceable
state operating permit (FESOP) which
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
was previously incorporated into the
Virginia SIP in order to implement
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emissions from Steel Dynamics, Inc.
(hereafter ‘‘SDI,’’ formerly Roanoke
Electric Steel). This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before April 7, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2020–0596 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
gordon.mike@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Talley, 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–
2117. Mr. Talley can also be reached via
electronic mail at talley.david@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
14, 2020, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ), on
behalf of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, formally submitted the
amended permit as a revision to the
Virginia SIP.
I. Background
Prior to the establishment of
nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS), EPA developed a
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
program to allow these potential
nonattainment areas to voluntarily
adopt local emission control programs
to avoid air quality violations and
mandated nonattainment area controls.
Areas with air quality meeting the 1979
1-hour ozone NAAQS were eligible to
participate. In order to participate, state
and local governments and EPA
developed and signed a memorandum
of agreement that describes the local
control measures the state or local
community intends to adopt and
implement to reduce ozone emissions in
advance of air quality violations. In this
agreement, also known as an Early
Action Compact (EAC), the state or local
communities agree to prepare emission
inventories and conduct air quality
modeling and monitoring to support its
selection of emission controls. Areas
that participated in the EAC program
had the flexibility to institute their own
approach in maintaining clean air and
protecting public health. Several
localities in the Winchester and
Roanoke areas elected to participate in
the EAC program. The areas that signed
an EAC were the City of Winchester and
Frederick County, which comprised the
Northern Shenandoah Valley EAC; and
the cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the
counties of Roanoke and Botetourt,
which comprised the Roanoke EAC.
VADEQ’s approach to implementing the
EAC was that RACT 1 be applied to
sources of NOX and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) within those
localities that were otherwise not
subject to RACT. The Roanoke Electric
Steel Corporation, currently SDI, was
one such source.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
On April 27, 2005, EPA approved a
SIP revision for the Commonwealth of
Virginia which incorporated provisions
from a federally enforceable state
operating permit into the Virginia SIP in
order to apply RACT to several units at
SDI (Virginia permit registration No.
20131, issued December 22, 2004;
hereafter, ‘‘2004 Permit’’). See 70 FR
21621. Virginia’s April 14, 2020
submittal includes a revised operating
permit for SDI which amends the 2004
permit to account for changes in
operation at the facility, including the
shut-down of a number of units. The
2004 permit included operational
requirements and NOX emissions limits
for the equipment listed in Table 1:
1 EPA defines RACT as the lowest emission limit
that a particular source is capable of meeting by the
application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic
feasibility.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
TABLE 1—EQUIPMENT LIST AND NOX
LIMITS FROM 2004 PERMIT
Unit
NOX emission limit
Tundish Preheaters (2) ...
0.25 pounds (lb) NOX/
million British thermal
unit (BTU).
0.25 lb NOX/million BTU.
Operational Limits Only.
37.8 lb NOX/hour.
6.0 lb NOX/hour.
Ladle Preheaters (2) .......
Electric Arc Furnace #4 ..
Electric Arc Furnace #5 ..
Ladle Metallurgical Station #5.
Billet Reheat Furnace #1
Billet Reheat Furnace #2
53.1 lb NOX/hour.
39.9 lb NOX/hour.
Since the issuance of the 2004 permit
(and EPA’s subsequent SIP approval),
operations at the facility have changed,
requiring a revision of both the
operating permit and the operating
permit provisions incorporated into the
SIP. At the time the 2004 permit was
issued, SDI had received a
preconstruction permit for the
construction of billet reheat furnace
(BRF) #2 to replace BRF #1. The
conditions of that preconstruction
permit were incorporated into the 2004
permit, and ultimately into the Virginia
SIP. However, BRF #2 was never
constructed, so the associated NOX
limits have been removed from the
operating permit. Electric arc furnace
(EAF) #4 was removed, as was BRF #1.
The only remaining units at the facility
that are subject to the source specific
NOX RACT limits of the 2004 permit are
EAF #5 and the Ladle Metallurgical
Station (LMS) #5. The other units have
been removed, replaced with equipment
that was not subject to RACT, or as was
the case with BRF #2, never
constructed. EAF #5 and LMS #5 remain
subject to the same limits as were in the
original permit. The RACT limits for
those remaining units have not changed,
and there are no emissions increases
associated with either the revised
permit, or Virginia’s proposed SIP
revision. The permit, and ultimately the
SIP, are simply being revised to account
for the removal of provisions related to
emissions units that no longer exist.
III. Proposed Action
EPA’s review of this material
indicates that it is consistent with all
CAA requirements. Additionally,
because the SIP revision does not allow
for any increase in emissions, it will not
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or any other
applicable CAA requirement, in
accordance with CAA section 110(l).
EPA is proposing to approve Virginia’s
April 14, 2020 submittal as a revision to
the Virginia SIP. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13255
this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
IV. General Information Pertaining to
SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation
that provides, subject to certain
conditions, for an environmental
assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for
voluntary compliance evaluations
performed by a regulated entity. The
legislation further addresses the relative
burden of proof for parties either
asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the
privilege is claimed. Virginia’s
legislation also provides, subject to
certain conditions, for a penalty waiver
for violations of environmental laws
when a regulated entity discovers such
violations pursuant to a voluntary
compliance evaluation and voluntarily
discloses such violations to the
Commonwealth and takes prompt and
appropriate measures to remedy the
violations. Virginia’s Voluntary
Environmental Assessment Privilege
Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides
a privilege that protects from disclosure
documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the
product of a voluntary environmental
assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information
that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a
voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the
assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger
to the public health or environment; or
(4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the
Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal
opinion that states that the Privilege
law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes
granting a privilege to documents and
information ‘‘required by law,’’
including documents and information
‘‘required by Federal law to maintain
program delegation, authorization or
approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce
Federally authorized environmental
programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts
. . . .’’ The opinion concludes that
‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 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
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
13256
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the unredacted portions of Virginia
stationary source permit to operate,
registration number 20132, issued to
Roanoke Electric Steel (D/B/A Steel
Dynamics, Inc.) on December 22, 2004,
and revised on March 25, 2020. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through
https://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).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive 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 it 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, this rule pertaining to source
specific NOX limits at SDI does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: February 18, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2021–04705 Filed 3–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2020–0732, FRL–10020–
07–Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; WA; Regional Haze
Best Available Retrofit Technology
Revision for TransAlta Centralia
Generation Plant
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
source-specific State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) on December 18,
2020. The SIP revision makes changes to
nitrogen oxide control requirements for
the TransAlta Centralia Generation
Plant (TransAlta). These requirements
were established in an order issued to
TransAlta by the state to satisfy the
Clean Air Act Best Available Retrofit
Technology Requirements (BART) put
in place by Congress to reduce regional
haze and restore visibility in national
parks and wilderness areas. The changes
submitted by the state are intended to
improve the operation of pollution
control equipment at TransAlta while
continuing to meet BART requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 7, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2020–0732 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 43 (Monday, March 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13254-13256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04705]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0596; FRL10019-52-Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Revised RACT Permit for Roanoke
Electric Steel/Steel Dynamics, Inc.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The revision consists of amendments to a
federally enforceable state operating permit (FESOP) which was
previously incorporated into the Virginia SIP in order to implement
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for nitrogen oxide
(NOX) emissions from Steel Dynamics, Inc. (hereafter
``SDI,'' formerly Roanoke Electric Steel). This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 7, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0596 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley, 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) 814-2117. Mr.
Talley can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 14, 2020, the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), on behalf of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, formally submitted the amended permit as a revision to the
Virginia SIP.
I. Background
Prior to the establishment of nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), EPA
developed a
[[Page 13255]]
program to allow these potential nonattainment areas to voluntarily
adopt local emission control programs to avoid air quality violations
and mandated nonattainment area controls. Areas with air quality
meeting the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS were eligible to participate. In
order to participate, state and local governments and EPA developed and
signed a memorandum of agreement that describes the local control
measures the state or local community intends to adopt and implement to
reduce ozone emissions in advance of air quality violations. In this
agreement, also known as an Early Action Compact (EAC), the state or
local communities agree to prepare emission inventories and conduct air
quality modeling and monitoring to support its selection of emission
controls. Areas that participated in the EAC program had the
flexibility to institute their own approach in maintaining clean air
and protecting public health. Several localities in the Winchester and
Roanoke areas elected to participate in the EAC program. The areas that
signed an EAC were the City of Winchester and Frederick County, which
comprised the Northern Shenandoah Valley EAC; and the cities of Roanoke
and Salem, and the counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, which comprised
the Roanoke EAC. VADEQ's approach to implementing the EAC was that RACT
\1\ be applied to sources of NOX and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) within those localities that were otherwise not
subject to RACT. The Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation, currently SDI,
was one such source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA defines RACT as the lowest emission limit that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
On April 27, 2005, EPA approved a SIP revision for the Commonwealth
of Virginia which incorporated provisions from a federally enforceable
state operating permit into the Virginia SIP in order to apply RACT to
several units at SDI (Virginia permit registration No. 20131, issued
December 22, 2004; hereafter, ``2004 Permit''). See 70 FR 21621.
Virginia's April 14, 2020 submittal includes a revised operating permit
for SDI which amends the 2004 permit to account for changes in
operation at the facility, including the shut-down of a number of
units. The 2004 permit included operational requirements and
NOX emissions limits for the equipment listed in Table 1:
Table 1--Equipment List and NOX Limits From 2004 Permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit NOX emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tundish Preheaters (2).................... 0.25 pounds (lb) NOX/million
British thermal unit (BTU).
Ladle Preheaters (2)...................... 0.25 lb NOX/million BTU.
Electric Arc Furnace #4................... Operational Limits Only.
Electric Arc Furnace #5................... 37.8 lb NOX/hour.
Ladle Metallurgical Station #5............ 6.0 lb NOX/hour.
Billet Reheat Furnace #1.................. 53.1 lb NOX/hour.
Billet Reheat Furnace #2.................. 39.9 lb NOX/hour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the issuance of the 2004 permit (and EPA's subsequent SIP
approval), operations at the facility have changed, requiring a
revision of both the operating permit and the operating permit
provisions incorporated into the SIP. At the time the 2004 permit was
issued, SDI had received a preconstruction permit for the construction
of billet reheat furnace (BRF) #2 to replace BRF #1. The conditions of
that preconstruction permit were incorporated into the 2004 permit, and
ultimately into the Virginia SIP. However, BRF #2 was never
constructed, so the associated NOX limits have been removed
from the operating permit. Electric arc furnace (EAF) #4 was removed,
as was BRF #1. The only remaining units at the facility that are
subject to the source specific NOX RACT limits of the 2004
permit are EAF #5 and the Ladle Metallurgical Station (LMS) #5. The
other units have been removed, replaced with equipment that was not
subject to RACT, or as was the case with BRF #2, never constructed. EAF
#5 and LMS #5 remain subject to the same limits as were in the original
permit. The RACT limits for those remaining units have not changed, and
there are no emissions increases associated with either the revised
permit, or Virginia's proposed SIP revision. The permit, and ultimately
the SIP, are simply being revised to account for the removal of
provisions related to emissions units that no longer exist.
III. Proposed Action
EPA's review of this material indicates that it is consistent with
all CAA requirements. Additionally, because the SIP revision does not
allow for any increase in emissions, it will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable CAA requirement, in accordance with
CAA section 110(l). EPA is proposing to approve Virginia's April 14,
2020 submittal as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before taking final action.
IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts . . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec. 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the
[[Page 13256]]
extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,'' any
person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency
regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit,
or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or
civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states
that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to
enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since ``no immunity
could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties
because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal
law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the unredacted portions of Virginia stationary source permit
to operate, registration number 20132, issued to Roanoke Electric Steel
(D/B/A Steel Dynamics, Inc.) on December 22, 2004, and revised on March
25, 2020. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through https://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).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 it 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, this rule pertaining to source specific NOX
limits at SDI 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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 18, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2021-04705 Filed 3-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P