[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58682-58686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23106]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0211, EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0510; FRL-9917-17-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Section 110(a)(2) Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) 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 two separate submittals addressing the infrastructure
requirements for the 2008 ozone and 2010 nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) NAAQS. This action approves the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) portions of the infrastructure
requirements of the CAA for the Commonwealth's SIP submittals for the
2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 30, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established two dockets for this action under Docket
ID Numbers EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0211 for the 2008 ozone docket and EPA-R03-
OAR-2013-0510 for the 2010 NO2 docket. 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. 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. Background
On May 21, 2014, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. 79 FR 29142. In the NPR, EPA
proposed approval of the infrastructure elements of section
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA as they relate to
Virginia's PSD program for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2
NAAQS. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by Virginia on July 23,
2012 and May 30, 2013 for the 2008 ozone and the 2010 NO2
NAAQS, respectively.
The July 23, 2012 and May 30, 2013 Virginia infrastructure SIP
submissions indicated that the approved Virginia SIP (plus measures
submitted but not yet fully approved by EPA for the SIP) addressed
requirements for a PSD program as required for section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II) and (J) of the
[[Page 58683]]
CAA.\1\ In Virginia, construction and modification of stationary
sources are covered under Article 8, Permits for Major Stationary
Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Areas (9VAC5-80-1605 et seq.) which is included in the
approved Virginia SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2420(c). Article 8 also requires
that construction and modification of major stationary sources will not
cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS (9VAC5-80-1635, Ambient
Air Increments and 9VAC5-80-1645, Ambient Air Ceilings) and requires
application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to new or
modified sources (9VAC5-80-1705, Control Technology Review). On August
5, 2011, Virginia submitted a revision to its SIP which incorporated
preconstruction permitting requirements for sources of fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) into Virginia's PSD program. Subsequent to
Virginia's submittal, two decisions by the United States Court of
Appeals for the DC Circuit addressed the Federal PM2.5
program and impacted EPA's ability to fully approve the PSD SIP
revisions submitted by Virginia.\2\ Virginia consequently submitted
additional revisions to its PSD program addressing preconstruction
permitting requirements for sources of PM2.5. On February
25, 2014, EPA fully approved these revisions to Virginia's PSD program.
79 FR 10377. With these revisions fully approved, Virginia's SIP-
approved PSD program now contains all of the emission limitations,
control measures, and other program elements required by the CAA and 40
CFR 51.166 for all required pollutants, including PM2.5. Id.
(also approving Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2008 lead NAAQS for PSD requirements in section
110(a)(2) of the CAA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Virginia's July 23, 2012 infrastructure SIP submission for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS cited to Virginia's existing approved PSD
program to address section 110(a)(2) requirements for PSD. However,
the May 30, 2013 infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS cited to Virginia's existing approved PSD
program plus additional regulatory provisions submitted to EPA but
not yet fully approved into the SIP to address section 110(a)(2)
requirements for PSD.
\2\ See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (remanding EPA's rules implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 2008 rule, ``Implementation of
New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)''), and Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d
458 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (vacating and remanding provisions at 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5), (k)(2) and 52.21(i)(5), (k)(2) relating to
PM2.5 significant impact levels and significant
monitoring concentrations for PSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires each state's SIP to
``include a program to provide for . . . regulation of the modification
and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by
the plan as necessary to ensure that national ambient air quality
standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in . . .
this subchapter.'' Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that for
each NAAQS the state's SIP must ``meet the applicable requirements of .
. . part C of this subchapter (relating to prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).'' Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA requires each state's SIP to include
provisions which will prevent emissions from within the state
interfering with the measures required by another state for
implementing PSD. As discussed in EPA's May 21, 2014 NPR, when
reviewing infrastructure SIP submittals, EPA focuses on the structural
PSD program requirements contained in part C as well as EPA's PSD
regulations. These structural requirements call for the PSD program to
address all NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat
GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source
is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said
that EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required
based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations
on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. In order to act
consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision pending
further judicial action to effectuate the decision, EPA is not
continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs
include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found
impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a
state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD
permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or
has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii)
for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant
net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise federal PSD rules
in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates
that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs
in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of
subsequent EPA actions with respect to EPA regulations and state PSD
program approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal
process before the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have
revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP
submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the
state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme
Court's decision.
As discussed in the May 21, 2014 NPR and herein, EPA finds
Virginia's approved SIP meets the statutory obligations relating to a
PSD permit program required by section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and
(J) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 79
FR 10377 (providing full approval to Virginia's PSD program as
addressing requirements in the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.166). The detailed
rationale for EPA's action is explained in the NPR and will not be
restated here. With respect to GHGs, EPA has determined that Virginia's
SIP is currently sufficient to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone and 2010
NO2 NAAQS because the PSD permitting program previously
approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits
(otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs)
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT.
Although Virginia's approved PSD permitting program may currently
contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme
Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission
inadequate to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). As
previously mentioned, the Virginia SIP currently contains the necessary
PSD requirements and the application of those requirements is not
impeded by the presence of other previously approved provisions
regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that, in light of the
Supreme Court decision, EPA does not consider necessary at this time.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA's proposed
approval of Virginia's infrastructure SIP as it relates to section
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
II. Summary of SIP Revision
On July 2, 2013, EPA proposed approval of the 2008 ozone submittal
for
[[Page 58684]]
the following infrastructure elements: Section 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). 78 FR 39651. Subsequently, EPA published a Final Rulemaking Notice
(FRN) on March 27, 2014, which approved the Virginia 2008 ozone
submittal for those specific elements. 79 FR 17043.
On August 5, 2013, EPA proposed approval of the 2010 NO2
submittal for the following infrastructure elements: Section
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). 78 FR 47264. Subsequently, on March
18, 2014, EPA published a FRN which approved the Virginia 2010
NO2 submittal for those specific elements. 79 FR 15012.
In both EPA's March 27, 2014 and March 18, 2014 FRNs, EPA indicated
that it was taking separate action on certain infrastructure elements
from Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittals as they related to PSD
and section 128 of the CAA. This final rulemaking action approves the
infrastructure elements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) of
the CAA as they relate to Virginia's PSD program for the 2008 ozone and
2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA will take later separate action on
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA as it relates to section 128 for
the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
III. Public Comments
EPA received two comments on the May 21, 2014 NPR proposing
approval of Virginia's July 23, 2012 and May 30, 2013 SIP submissions
addressing the PSD infrastructure elements for the 2008 ozone and 2010
NO2 NAAQS. A full set of the comments is provided in the
docket for this final rulemaking action. A summary of each comment and
the EPA's response is provided in this section.
Comment: One commenter stated, ``[t]hese regulations will destroy
the cheap coal energy for our population'' and requested a new
President to reverse EPA's climate change policies. The commenter also
suggested EPA should ``go through Congress,'' presumably on climate
change issues.
EPA Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the concerns expressed.
However, the comments are not germane to the present rulemaking. This
rulemaking action approves Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittals for
the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS as fully addressing the
PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J)
of the CAA for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. While
Virginia's SIP-approved PSD program includes greenhouse gases as a
regulated pollutant, EPA is not approving those provisions in this
rulemaking action. The commenter's concerns regarding coal energy and
EPA's actions on climate change issues are irrelevant to this
rulemaking action, and therefore no further response is required.
Comment: Another commenter remarked on Virginia's environmental
assessment (audit) ``privilege'' discussed in Section III of EPA's May
21, 2014 NPR under ``General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals
from the Commonwealth of Virginia,'' which is also included in Section
IV of this rulemaking action. The commenter stated he wrote ``to
support the docket as written'' and stated there needs to be a
sufficient level of disclosure of emissions in environmental law to
ensure emission limits are met. The commenter also stated that the
Commonwealth of Virginia's laws seem to meet this standard, and
therefore the commenter supported ``their proposal.''
EPA Response: In this rulemaking action, EPA is approving
Virginia's infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting PSD requirements
in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) of the CAA for the 2008
ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA is not approving any Virginia
privilege or immunity law into the Virginia SIP nor taking any
rulemaking action on any such Virginia provisions. As discussed in the
NPR and in Section V of this rulemaking action, Virginia's law
regarding an environmental assessment (audit) ``privilege'' for
voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity
provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information that are the product of a voluntary environmental
assessment. As discussed in the NPR and in Section IV of this
rulemaking action, the Virginia Attorney General's January 12, 1998
opinion stated that Virginia's audit privilege law is inapplicable to
enforcement of any Federally authorized program, 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.'' EPA has determined
that Virginia's privilege and immunity statutory provision will not
preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD program consistent
with the Federal requirements, and EPA has also determined that a state
audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and
has no impact on Federal enforcement authorities. However, in this
rulemaking action, EPA is not approving any of Virginia's privilege and
immunity statutory provisions into the Virginia SIP, and our discussion
merely provides EPA's long-held interpretation of Virginia's statutory
privilege provision as not impacting enforcement of the CAA or
interfering with Federally required programs such as a PSD permits
program. While the commenter is mistaken regarding the substance of our
rulemaking action here, the commenter did not disagree with EPA. Thus,
EPA thanks the commenter for his input. As the comment is not related
to this rulemaking action which approves Virginia's SIP submissions as
meeting PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008
ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, no further response is required.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the formal SIP revisions submitted by Virginia on
July 23, 2012 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and May 30, 2013 for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS as they meet the infrastructure requirements
relating to a PSD permit program pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA.
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
[[Page 58685]]
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
PSD 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 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 December 1, 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, approving Virginia's July 23, 2012 SIP submission
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and May 30, 2013 SIP submission for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS as meeting the PSD elements in section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
[[Page 58686]]
Dated: September 9, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart VV--Virginia
0
2. In Sec. 52.2420:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (e), revise the entry for ``Section
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
NAAQS.''
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e), revise the entry for ``Section
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.''
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State submittal
revision geographic area date EPA approval date Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Statewide......... 5/30/13......... 3/18/14, 79 FR This action addresses
Infrastructure Requirements 15012. the following CAA
for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide elements, or portions
NAAQS. 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.
9/30/14 [Insert This action addresses
Federal Register the following CAA
citation]. elements, or portions
thereof:
110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J)
with respect to the
PSD elements.
Section 110(a)(2) Statewide......... 7/23/12......... 3/27/14, 79 FR This action addresses
Infrastructure Requirements 17043. the following CAA
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. elements, or 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.
9/30/14 [Insert This action addresses
Federal Register the following CAA
citation]. elements, or portions
thereof:
110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J)
with respect to the
PSD elements.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-23106 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P