[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15012-15016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05808]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0510; FRL-9908-04-Region-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA
requires states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic
program elements, including, but not limited to regulatory structure,
monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary
to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements
are referred to as infrastructure requirements. The Commonwealth of
Virginia has made a submittal addressing the infrastructure
requirements for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 17, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0510. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
[[Page 15013]]
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection
during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East
Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of SIP Revision
On August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47264), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia proposing approval of
Virginia's May 30, 2013 submittal to satisfy several requirements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. In the
NPR EPA proposed approval of the following infrastructure elements:
Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation of
minor sources and minor modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility
protection), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (relating to
consultation, public notification, and visibility protection
requirements), (K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof. EPA is taking
separate rulemaking action on the portions of section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to Virginia's prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program and on section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
as it relates to section 128 (State Boards). Virginia did not submit
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the nonattainment requirements
of part D, Title I of the CAA, since this element is not required to be
submitted by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1),
and will be addressed in a separate process. Virginia also did not
include a component to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as it is not
required in accordance with the EME Homer City decision from the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, until EPA
has defined a state's contribution to nonattainment or interference
with maintenance in another state. See EME Homer City Generation, LP v.
EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4801
(2013). Unless the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise
modified by the Supreme Court, states such as Virginia are not required
to submit section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has quantified
their obligations under that section. Therefore, EPA is not acting on
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS as Virginia made
no submission for this element.
The rationale supporting EPA's proposed action, including the scope
of infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in the NPR and the
technical support document (TSD) accompanying the NPR and will not be
restated here. The TSD is available online at www.regulations.gov,
Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0510.
II. Public Comments and EPA's Responses
EPA received a single set of comments on the August 5, 2013
proposed rulemaking action of Virginia's 2010 NO2
infrastructure SIP. These comments were provided by the National Parks
Conservation Association (hereinafter referred to as ``the
commenter''), and raised concerns with regard to EPA's NPR. A full set
of these comments is provided in the docket for today's final
rulemaking action.
Comment 1: The commenter contends that EPA should disapprove
Virginia's 2010 NO2 infrastructure SIP revision with regard
to the visibility component of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because it relies
upon reductions from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (``CAIR''). The
commenter references the litigation in the D.C. Circuit related to
CAIR, asserting that CAIR is not permanent and enforceable and
Virginia's reliance upon CAIR for its visibility protection duties
under the CAA renders its reductions temporary, unenforceable, and
illegal. The commenter asserts that EPA could not rely on CAIR to
support its proposed approval of the visibility prong of Virginia's
2010 NO2 infrastructure revision. The commenter states that
EPA must also disapprove Virginia's 2010 NO2 infrastructure
SIP revision because it is inconsistent with the congressional mandate
in section 169A for the use of best available retrofit technology
(BART) to improve visibility in Class I areas. The commenter also
states that EPA and Virginia cannot use CAIR as a substitute for the
explicitly mandated BART provisions of the CAA because it does not meet
any exemptions allowed under the CAA. Additionally, the commenter
states that compliance with CAIR does not meet any requirement for such
an exemption as it does not impact the threshold BART issue of
contribution to visibility impairment. The commenter states that there
is simply no basis in the CAA to support a BART substitute, like CAIR,
that has not been demonstrated to produce greater visibility
improvement in all Class I areas.
Furthermore, the commenter states that the requirements in ``51 CFR
51.308(d)'' for reasonable progress goals, calculation of baseline and
natural visibility conditions, and a long term strategy cannot be
satisfied by broadly averaging emissions or visibility over a number of
different Class I areas.\1\ The commenter states reasonable progress
should be measured on an area-by-area basis to account for variability
in source contribution and visibility conditions. The commenter asserts
that if EPA approves Virginia's CAIR visibility prong and allows CAIR-
based exemptions to substitute emission reductions by non-BART sources
for those from BART sources, BART sources will be controlled at levels
less stringent than the application of source-by-source BART would
require and additionally asserted there is no guarantee that CAIR's
nitrogen oxide (NOX) reductions would occur at BART sources.
The commenter claims EPA must disapprove the visibility provision in
Virginia's 2010 NO2 infrastructure SIP because CAIR was
``vacated,'' is not permanent and enforceable, and does not meet the
requirements of section 169A of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA notes that the Commenter inadvertently referred to 51
CFR 51.308(d). EPA assumes the commenter meant to refer to 40 CFR
51.308(d) which is the relevant provision requiring reasonable
progress goals, calculation of baseline and natural visibility
conditions, and a long term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 1: EPA disagrees with the commenter that it must
disapprove the visibility provision in Virginia's 2010 NO2
infrastructure SIP. First, EPA notes that CAIR has not been ``vacated''
as stated in the comment. As mentioned in EPA's TSD, CAIR was
ultimately remanded by the D.C. Circuit to EPA without vacatur, and EPA
continues to implement CAIR.\2\ As explained in detail in today's
rulemaking action, EPA believes that in light of the D.C. Circuit's
subsequent decision to vacate the EPA rule known as the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR), also known as the Transport Rule (see EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d 7), and the court's order for EPA to ``continue
administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a
[[Page 15014]]
valid replacement,'' it is appropriate for EPA to rely at this time on
CAIR to support approval of Virginia's 2010 NO2
infrastructure revision as it relates to the visibility prong. EPA has
been ordered by the D.C. Circuit to develop a new rule, and to continue
implementing CAIR in the meantime. Unless the Supreme Court reverses or
otherwise modifies the D.C. Circuit's decision on CSAPR in EME Homer
City, EPA does not intend to act in a manner inconsistent with the
decision of the D.C. Circuit. Based on the current direction from the
court to continue administering CAIR, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to rely on CAIR emission reductions for purposes of
assessing the adequacy of Virginia's infrastructure SIP revision with
respect to prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility
protection while a valid replacement rule is developed and until
submissions complying with any such new rule are submitted by the
states and acted upon by EPA or until the EME Homer City case is
resolved in a way that provides different direction regarding CAIR and
CSAPR.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(finding CAIR inconsistent with requirements of CAA) and North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (remanding
CAIR to EPA without vacatur because it found that ``allowing CAIR to
remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with [the
court's] opinion would at least temporarily preserve the
environmental values covered by CAIR'').
\3\ Since the vacatur of CSAPR in August 2012 and with continued
implementation of CAIR per the direction of the D.C. Circuit in EME
Homer City, EPA has approved redesignations of areas to attainment
of the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS in
which states have relied on CAIR as an enforceable measure. See 77
FR 76415 (December 28, 2012) (redesignation of Huntington-Ashland,
West Virginia for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, which was proposed 77
FR 68076 (November 15, 2012)); 78 FR 59841 (September 30, 2013)
(redesignation of Wheeling, West Virginia for 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, which was proposed 77 FR 73575 (December 11, 2012)); and 78
FR 56168 (September 12, 2013) (redesignation of Parkersburg, West
Virginia for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, which was proposed 77 FR
73560 (December 11, 2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, as neither the Commonwealth nor EPA has taken any
action to remove CAIR from the Virginia SIP, CAIR remains part of the
federally-approved SIP and can be considered in determining whether the
SIP as a whole meets the requirement of prong 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
EPA is taking final action to approve the infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to prong 4 because Virginia's regional haze SIP, which EPA
has approved in combination with its SIP provisions to implement CAIR
adequately prevents sources in Virginia from interfering with measures
adopted by other states to protect visibility during the first planning
period.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the
entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and
prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision.
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. Therefore, EPA
believes it is appropriate to approve Virginia's 2010 NO2
NAAQS infrastructure SIP for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it meets
the requirements of that section despite the limited approval status
of Virginia's regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees with the commenter that the CAA does not allow states
to rely on an alternative program such as CAIR in lieu of source-
specific BART. EPA's regulations allowing states to adopt alternatives
to BART that provide for greater reasonable progress, and EPA's
determination that states may rely on CAIR to meet the BART
requirements, have been upheld by the D.C. Circuit as meeting the
requirements of the CAA. In the first case challenging the provisions
in the regional haze rule allowing for states to adopt alternative
programs in lieu of BART, the court affirmed EPA's interpretation of
CAA section 169A(b)(2) as allowing for alternatives to BART where those
alternatives will result in greater reasonable progress than BART.
Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660
(D.C. Cir. 2005) (finding reasonable the EPA's interpretation of CAA
section 169A(b)(2) as requiring BART only as necessary to make
reasonable progress). In the second case, Utility Air Regulatory Group
v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006), the court specifically upheld
EPA's determination that states could rely on CAIR as an alternative
program to BART for EGUs in the CAIR-affected states. The court
concluded that the EPA's two-pronged test for determining whether an
alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress was a
reasonable one and also agreed with EPA that nothing in the CAA
required the EPA to ``impose a separate technology mandate for sources
whose emissions affect Class I areas, rather than piggy-backing on
solutions devised under other statutory categories, where such
solutions meet the statutory requirements.'' Id. at 1340.
More fundamentally, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the
adequacy of the BART measures in the Virginia regional haze SIP is
relevant to the question of whether the Commonwealth's SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA with respect to
visibility. EPA interprets the visibility provisions in this section of
the CAA as requiring states to include in their SIPs measures to
prohibit emissions that would interfere with the reasonable progress
goals set to protect Class I areas in other states. The regional haze
rule includes a similar requirement. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). EPA notes
that on June 13, 2012, EPA determined that Virginia's regional haze SIP
adequately prevents sources in Virginia from interfering with the
reasonable progress goals adopted by other states to protect visibility
during the first planning period. See 77 FR 35287. See also 77 FR 3691,
3709 (January 25, 2012) (proposing approval of Virginia's regional haze
SIP). As EPA's review of the Virginia regional haze SIP explains, the
Commonwealth relied on enforceable emissions reductions already in
place to address the impacts of Virginia on out-of-state Class I areas.
The question of whether or not CAIR satisfies the BART requirements has
no bearing on whether these measures meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility.
Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA must
disapprove the visibility provision in Virginia's 2010 NO2
infrastructure SIP because CAIR does remain in effect and is
enforceable. EPA also notes that while the adequacy of the BART
provisions in the Virginia regional haze SIP is irrelevant to the
question of whether the plan meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), CAIR was upheld as an alternative to BART in
accordance with the requirements of section 169A of the CAA by the D.C.
Circuit in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA.
Comment 2: The commenter states that EPA should disapprove the
visibility prong of Virginia's 2010 NO2 infrastructure
revision because the commenter asserts that Virginia failed to submit
its five year progress review for regional haze by the required date.
The commenter references a July 17, 2008 SIP submittal from Virginia as
the basis for determining when the five year progress report for
regional haze was due.
Response 2: EPA disagrees with the comment that Virginia failed to
submit its five year progress report by the required date. Virginia's
five year progress report for 40 CFR 51.308(g) is not due until October
4, 2015. The Commonwealth of Virginia submitted several regional haze
SIP submissions between 2008 and 2010. On July 17, 2008, Virginia
submitted to EPA the first of many SIP revisions addressing portions of
the regional haze requirements. This first submission contained a
permit and a BART determination for one source in Virginia. Virginia
submitted three additional SIP revisions containing permits and BART
determinations addressing specific sources on March 6, 2009, January
14, 2010, and November
[[Page 15015]]
19, 2010. A May 6, 2011 SIP revision also included a permit for a
source for purposes of reasonable progress. Although the July 2008,
March 2009, January 2010, November 2010, and May 2011 SIP revision
submittals from Virginia included BART and reasonable progress
determinations for specific sources in Virginia, the Commonwealth did
not submit a comprehensive regional haze plan until October 4, 2010.
This plan included the reasonable progress goals for Virginia's Class I
areas, calculations of baseline and natural visibility conditions, a
long-term strategy for regional haze, additional BART determinations,
and a monitoring strategy.
Given this, EPA considers the appropriate regional haze SIP
submission which Virginia should be evaluating in the progress report
required by 40 CFR 51.308(g) is the October 4, 2010 submission.
Consequently, Virginia's five year progress report for 40 CFR 51.308(g)
is not due until October 4, 2015, five years from the first regional
haze SIP submittal which comprehensively addressed 40 CFR 51.308(d) and
(e).
Finally, EPA notes that on November 8, 2013 Virginia submitted its
five year progress report for 40 CFR 51.308(g) significantly in advance
of its October 4, 2015 due date. On February 11, 2014, EPA signed a
separate rulemaking action proposing approval of that report. EPA's
review of emissions data from Virginia's five year progress report
shows that emissions of the key visibility-impairing pollutant for the
southeast, sulfur dioxide (SO2), continued to drop from
428,070 tons per year (tpy) in 2002 to 268,877 tpy in 2007 to 115,436
tpy in 2011. The emissions inventories also show similar substantial
declines in other pollutants, particularly NOX, between 2007
and 2011.
In summary, EPA believes that it appropriately proposed approval of
Virginia's infrastructure SIP revision for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS for the structural visibility protection requirements in
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because that progress report was not yet due on the
date of EPA's publication of the proposal. Therefore, EPA finds
Virginia has met the basic structural visibility protection
requirements in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec. 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the following infrastructure elements or portions
thereof of Virginia's SIP revision: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C)
(for enforcement and regulation of minor sources and minor
modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection), (D)(ii),
(E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (relating to consultation, public
notification, and visibility protection requirements), (K), (L), and
(M), or portions thereof as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is
taking separate rulemaking action on the portions of section
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to Virginia's PSD
program and section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates to section 128
(State Boards). This rulemaking action does not include section
110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, since this element is not
required to be submitted by the three year submission deadline of
section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a separate process. This
rulemaking action also does not include proposed action on section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because this element, or portions thereof, is not
required to be submitted by a state until the EPA has quantified a
state's obligations and Virginia's SIP submittal did not include this
element. See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C.
Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4801 (2013).
[[Page 15016]]
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. 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 May 19, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, addressing certain infrastructure requirements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 3, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart VV--Virginia
0
2. Section 52.2420 is amended in paragraph (e), by adding an entry for
``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen
Dioxide NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable geographic State Additional
revision area submittal date EPA approval date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Statewide.............. 5/30/13 3/18/14 [Insert This action
Infrastructure Requirements Federal Register addresses the
for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide page number where following CAA
NAAQS. the document elements, or
begins]. portions thereof:
110(a)(2) (A),
(B), (C),
(D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J),
(K), (L), and (M)
with the
exception of PSD
elements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-05808 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P