83 FR 10652 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 48 (March 12, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 48 (March 12, 2018)
| Page Range | 10652-10655 | |
| FR Document | 2018-04812 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 48 (Monday, March 12, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 10652-10655] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-04812] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0738; FRL-9975-35-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision formally submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia). Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), states' SIPs must require stationary sources in ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal or above to report annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). This emissions statement requirement also applies to stationary sources located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) that emit or have the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year (tpy) of VOC or 100 tpy of NOX . The SIP revision provides Virginia's certification that its existing emissions statement program satisfies the emissions statement requirements of the CAA for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve Virginia's emissions statement program certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as a SIP revision in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03- OAR-2017-0738 at http://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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Under the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for criteria pollutants in order to protect human health and the [[Page 10653]] environment. In response to scientific evidence linking ozone exposure to adverse health effects, EPA promulgated the first ozone NAAQS, the 0.12 part per million (ppm) 1-hour ozone NAAQS, in 1979. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). The CAA requires EPA to review and reevaluate the NAAQS every 5 years in order to consider updated information regarding the effects of the criteria pollutants on human health and the environment. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised ozone NAAQS, referred to as the 1997 ozone NAAQS, of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. 62 FR 38855. This 8-hour ozone NAAQS was determined to be more protective of public health than the previous 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In 2008, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm. The 0.075 ppm standard is referred to as the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). On May 21, 2012 and June 11, 2012, EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 34221. Effective July 20, 2012, the Washington, DC-MD-VA area was designated as marginal nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area is comprised of Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City. See 40 CFR 81.347. Section 182 of the CAA identifies additional plan submissions and requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Specifically, section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires that states develop and submit, as a revision to their SIP, rules which establish annual reporting requirements for certain stationary sources. Sources that are within marginal or above ozone nonattainment areas must annually report the actual emissions of NOX and VOC to the state. However, states may waive sources that emit under 25 tpy of NOX and VOC if the state provides an inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources as required by CAA sections 172 and 182. See CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii). Additionally, portions of Virginia are included in the ozone transport region (OTR) established by Congress in section 184 of the CAA. The OTR is comprised of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the District of Columbia and portions of Virginia. The areas designated as in the Virginia portion of the OTR are as follows: Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See, e.g. ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; NSR in the Ozone Transport Region'', 71 FR 39570 (July 13, 2006) and 71 FR 890 (January 6, 2006). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to section 184(b)(2), any stationary source located in the OTR that emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 tpy of VOC shall be considered a major stationary source and subject to the requirements which would be applicable to major stationary sources if the area was classified as a moderate nonattainment area. See CAA section 184. Thus, states within the OTR are subject to plan (or SIP) requirements in CAA section 182(b) applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Also, section 182(f)(1) of the CAA requires that the plan provisions required for major stationary sources of VOC also apply to major stationary sources of NOX for states with ozone nonattainment areas. A major stationary source of NOX is defined as a stationary facility or source of air pollutants which directly emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of NOX . See CAA section 302(j). In summary, sources located within the portions of Virginia included in the OTR, including areas designated as attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, that emit more than 50 tpy of VOC or 100 tpy of NOX are considered major sources and are subject to the same requirements as major stationary sources located in moderate or above nonattainment areas. These requirements include the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). See CAA section 182(f) and 184(b)(2). Sources located in designated marginal or above nonattainment areas must also submit an emissions statement as required by CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). As stated previously, states may waive sources that emit less than the 25 tpy of NOX and 25 tpy of VOC threshold if the state provides an inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources as required by CAA sections 172 and 182. See CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii). States are required by section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA to submit, for approval into the state's SIP, rules requiring the sources described above to provide annual statements showing their actual emissions of NOX and VOC to the state. The EPA published guidance on source emissions statements in a July 1992 memorandum titled, ``Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission Statement Program'' and in a March 14, 2006 memorandum titled, ``Emission Statement Requirements Under 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation'' (2006 memorandum). In addition, on March 6, 2015, EPA issued a final rule addressing a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) (2015 final rule). 80 FR 12264. The 2006 memorandum clarified that the source emissions statement requirement of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) was applicable to all areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and classified as marginal or above under subpart 2, part D, title I of the CAA. Per EPA's 2015 final rule, the source emissions statement requirement also applies to all areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. According to EPA's 2015 final rule, most areas that are required to have an emissions statement program for the 2008 ozone NAAQS already have one in place due to a nonattainment designation for an earlier ozone NAAQS. EPA's 2015 final rule states that, ``If an area has a previously approved emissions statement rule in force for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such rule should be sufficient for purposes of the emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.'' In cases where an existing emissions statement rule is still adequate to meet the emissions statement requirement under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, states may provide the rationale for that determination to EPA in a written statement for approval in the SIP to meet the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). In this statement, states should identify how the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) are met by their existing emissions statement rule. In summary, the Commonwealth of Virginia is required to submit, as a formal revision to its SIP, a statement certifying that Virginia's existing emissions statement program satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and covers the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ EPA did not require Virginia or other states to certify that its existing SIP approved emissions statement program continued to satisfy CAA requirements for areas in the OTR to have an emissions statement program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 10654]] II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis On August 1, 2017, the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), submitted, as a formal revision to its SIP, a statement certifying that Virginia's existing SIP-approved emissions statement program covers the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and is at least as stringent as the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). In its submittal, Virginia states that the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) are contained under 9VAC5-20-160 (Registration) of the Virginia Administrative Code and are SIP-approved under 40 CFR 52.2420(c). According to Virginia, these provisions mandate that facilities emitting more than 25 tpy of NOX or VOC must submit emission statements to Virginia while those emitting less than 25 tpy must comply with inventory requirements. The provisions under 9VAC5-20-160 that implement Virginia's emissions statement program were approved into the Virginia SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21451).\3\ These provisions require the owner of any stationary source that emits 25 tpy or more of VOC or NOX and is located in an emissions control area designated under 9VAC5-20- 206 (Volatile Organic Compound and Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Control Areas) to submit an emissions statement to the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board by April 15 of each year for the emissions discharged during the previous calendar year.\4\ Emissions statements are required to be prepared and submitted in accordance with 9VAC5-20- 121 (Air Quality Program Policies and Procedures), which references Virginia's January 1, 1993 document AQP-8 titled, ``Procedures for Preparing and Submitting Emission Statements for Stationary Sources.'' The provisions under 9VAC5-20-121 were also approved into the Virginia SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21451). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The provisions under 9VAC5-20-160 were derived from VR120- 02-31. EPA's May 2, 1995 direct final rulemaking (DFR) approved a SIP revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia requesting the addition of provisions under VR120-02-31 paragraph B, which established Virginia's emissions statement program, and Appendix S (Air Quality Program Policies and Procedures), which described the procedure for preparing and submitting emissions statements for stationary sources, to the Virginia SIP. See 60 FR 21451. On March 6, 1992, the Virginia State Assembly enacted Chapter 216--an act to amend Section 9-77.7, Code of Virginia, which authorized reorganization of the Virginia Administrative Code, including reorganization of the air pollution control regulations, effective July 1, 1992. Beginning April 17, 1995, Virginia began publication of its air quality control regulations in the new format. On April 21, 2000, EPA approved a SIP revision from Virginia requesting the reorganization and renumbering of the Virginia SIP to match the recodification of Virginia's air pollution control regulations under the Virginia Administrative Code. See 65 FR 21315. As a result, the SIP approved provisions under VR120-02-31 and Appendix S are now under 9VAC5-20-160 and 9VAC5-20-121, respectively. \4\ The emissions control areas defined under 9VAC5-20-206 include the Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area, the Fredericksburg Emissions Control Area, the Richmond Emissions Control Area, the Hampton Roads Emissions Control Area, and the Western Virginia Emissions Control Area. The Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area consists of the localities of Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Alexandra City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA's review of the Commonwealth of Virginia's submittal finds that Virginia's existing, SIP-approved emissions statement program under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for emission statements for sources located in marginal or above nonattainment areas including such sources in the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA notes 9VAC5-20-160 also requires sources located in portions of Virginia included in the OTR to submit required emission statements in accordance with CAA section 184 (OTR requirements) and 182 (plan submissions and requirements for ozone nonattainment areas). Pursuant to CAA sections 182 and 184, Virginia is required to have an emissions statement program for sources located in marginal or above nonattainment areas and the portions of Virginia included in the OTR. EPA finds the provisions under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfy these requirements of CAA sections 182 and 184 because they apply to the Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area, which includes the Virginia localities within the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City), and the portions of Virginia included in the OTR (i.e., Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City). EPA also finds Virginia's emissions thresholds for sources that are required to submit an emissions statement meet the requirements of CAA sections 182 and 184. As stated above, 9VAC5-20-160 requires the owner of any stationary source located in an emissions control area that emits 25 tpy or more of VOC or NOX to annually submit an emissions statement. This 25 tpy threshold is equivalent to the threshold required by CAA section 182. As previously mentioned, per CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii), states may waive sources that emit less than 25 tpy of NOX or VOC if the state provides an inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources as required by CAA sections 172 and 182. Virginia does provide emissions inventories for nonattainment areas as required by CAA section 172(c)(3).\5\ Therefore, EPA has determined that 9VAC5-20-160, which is currently in the Virginia SIP, is appropriate to address the emissions statement requirements in section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve, as a SIP revision, the Commonwealth of Virginia's August 1, 2017 emissions statement program certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as approvable under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventories for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' 80 FR 27255 (May 13, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Virginia's SIP revision submitted on August 1, 2017, which certifies that Virginia's existing SIP-approved emissions statement program under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 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 [[Page 10655]] 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. V. 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 SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This SIP revision consisting of Virginia's certification that its existing SIP-approved emissions statement program under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: February 26, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 2018-04812 Filed 3-9-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![10652 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
statement requirement in section • is not subject to requirements of ozone nonattainment areas classified as
182(a)(3)(B) and is proposing to approve Section 12(d) of the National marginal or above to report annual
this SIP revision. EPA is soliciting Technology Transfer and Advancement emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
public comments on the issues Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because volatile organic compounds (VOC). This
discussed in this document. These application of those requirements would emissions statement requirement also
comments will be considered before be inconsistent with the CAA; and applies to stationary sources located in
taking final action. • does not provide EPA with the the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) that
discretionary authority to address, as emit or have the potential to emit at
III. Proposed Action least 50 tons per year (tpy) of VOC or
appropriate, disproportionate human
EPA is proposing to approve the health or environmental effects, using 100 tpy of NOX. The SIP revision
November 3, 2017 Pennsylvania SIP practicable and legally permissible provides Virginia’s certification that its
revision certifying that Pennsylvania’s methods, under Executive Order 12898 existing emissions statement program
existing SIP-approved emissions (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). satisfies the emissions statement
statement regulation meets the In addition, this proposed rule, which requirements of the CAA for the 2008
emissions statement requirement of proposes to approve Pennsylvania’s ozone National Ambient Air Quality
section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA for the certification that Pennsylvania’s SIP- Standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing
2008 ozone NAAQS. approved emissions statement to approve Virginia’s emissions
IV. Statutory and Executive Order regulation meets the emissions statement program certification for the
Reviews statement requirement of section 2008 ozone NAAQS as a SIP revision in
182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, does not have accordance with the requirements of the
Under the CAA, the Administrator is tribal implications as specified by CAA.
required to approve a SIP submission Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, DATES: Written comments must be
that complies with the provisions of the November 9, 2000), because the SIP is received on or before April 11, 2018.
CAA and applicable federal regulations. not approved to apply in Indian country ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). located in the state, and EPA notes that identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, it will not impose substantial direct OAR–2017–0738 at http://
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, costs on tribal governments or preempt www.regulations.gov, or via email to
provided that they meet the criteria of tribal law. spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
merely approves state law as meeting
follow the online instructions for
federal requirements and does not Environmental protection, Air submitting comments. Once submitted,
impose additional requirements beyond pollution control, Incorporation by comments cannot be edited or removed
those imposed by state law. For that reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, from Regulations.gov. For either manner
reason, this proposed action: Reporting and recordkeeping of submission, EPA may publish any
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory requirements, Volatile organic comment received to its public docket.
action’’ subject to review by the Office compounds. Do not submit electronically any
of Management and Budget under
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. information you consider to be
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
Dated: February 23, 2018. confidential business information (CBI)
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
or other information whose disclosure is
January 21, 2011); Cosmo Servidio,
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 restricted by statute. Multimedia
Regional Administrator, Region III.
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
[FR Doc. 2018–04813 Filed 3–9–18; 8:45 am]
action because SIP approvals are accompanied by a written comment.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P The written comment is considered the
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information official comment and should include
collection burden under the provisions discussion of all points you wish to
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION make. EPA will generally not consider
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 AGENCY
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); comments or comment contents located
• is certified as not having a 40 CFR Part 52 outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
significant economic impact on a on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0738; FRL–9975–35– system). For additional submission
substantial number of small entities Region 3]
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 methods, please contact the person
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); identified in the FOR FURTHER
Approval and Promulgation of Air
• does not contain any unfunded Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
mandate or significantly or uniquely full EPA public comment policy,
Emissions Statement Rule Certification
affect small governments, as described information about CBI or multimedia
for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act submissions, and general guidance on
Air Quality Standard
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); making effective comments, please visit
• does not have federalism AGENCY: Environmental Protection http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
implications as specified in Executive Agency (EPA). commenting-epa-dockets.
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, ACTION: Proposed rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1999); Calcinore, (215) 814–2043, or by email
• is not an economically significant SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection at calcinore.sara@epa.gov.
regulatory action based on health or Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
safety risks subject to Executive Order state implementation plan (SIP) revision
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); formally submitted by the I. Background
• is not a significant regulatory action Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia). Under the CAA, EPA establishes
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), states’ NAAQS for criteria pollutants in order
28355, May 22, 2001); SIPs must require stationary sources in to protect human health and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:41 Mar 09, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MRP1.SGM 12MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_10700/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 10655
when a regulated entity discovers such programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be • does not contain any unfunded
violations pursuant to a voluntary afforded from administrative, civil, or mandate or significantly or uniquely
compliance evaluation and voluntarily criminal penalties because granting affect small governments, as described
discloses such violations to the such immunity would not be consistent in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Commonwealth and takes prompt and with federal law, which is one of the of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
appropriate measures to remedy the criteria for immunity.’’ • does not have federalism
violations. Virginia’s Voluntary Therefore, EPA has determined that implications as specified in Executive
Environmental Assessment Privilege Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides statutes will not preclude the 1999);
a privilege that protects from disclosure Commonwealth from enforcing its • is not an economically significant
documents and information about the program consistent with the federal regulatory action based on health or
content of those documents that are the requirements. In any event, because safety risks subject to Executive Order
product of a voluntary environmental EPA has also determined that a state 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
assessment. The Privilege Law does not audit privilege and immunity law can • is not a significant regulatory action
extend to documents or information affect only state enforcement and cannot subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
that: (1) Are generated or developed have any impact on federal enforcement 28355, May 22, 2001);
before the commencement of a authorities, EPA may at any time invoke
voluntary environmental assessment; (2) • is not subject to requirements of
its authority under the CAA, including, Section 12(d) of the National
are prepared independently of the for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211
assessment process; (3) demonstrate a Technology Transfer and Advancement
or 213, to enforce the requirements or Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
clear, imminent and substantial danger prohibitions of the state plan,
to the public health or environment; or application of those requirements would
independently of any state enforcement be inconsistent with the CAA; and
(4) are required by law. effort. In addition, citizen enforcement
On January 12, 1998, the • does not provide EPA with the
under section 304 of the CAA is
Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the discretionary authority to address, as
likewise unaffected by this, or any, state
Attorney General provided a legal appropriate, disproportionate human
audit privilege or immunity law.
opinion that states that the Privilege health or environmental effects, using
law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes V. Statutory and Executive Order practicable and legally permissible
granting a privilege to documents and Reviews methods, under Executive Order 12898
information ‘‘required by law,’’ Under the CAA, the Administrator is (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
including documents and information required to approve a SIP submission This SIP revision consisting of
‘‘required by federal law to maintain that complies with the provisions of the Virginia’s certification that its existing
program delegation, authorization or CAA and applicable federal regulations. SIP-approved emissions statement
approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). program under 9VAC5–20–160 satisfies
federally authorized environmental Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the requirements of CAA section
programs in a manner that is no less EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
stringent than their federal provided that they meet the criteria of is not approved to apply on any Indian
counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion the CAA. Accordingly, this action reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C.
concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, merely approves state law as meeting 1151 or in any other area where EPA or
therefore, documents or other federal requirements and does not an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
information needed for civil or criminal impose additional requirements beyond tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
enforcement under one of these those imposed by state law. For that Indian country, the rule does not have
programs could not be privileged reason, this proposed action: tribal implications and will not impose
because such documents and • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory substantial direct costs on tribal
information are essential to pursuing action’’ subject to review by the Office governments or preempt tribal law as
enforcement in a manner required by of Management and Budget under specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
federal law to maintain program Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
delegation, authorization or approval.’’ October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code January 21, 2011);
Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the • is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 Environmental protection, Air
extent consistent with requirements FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory pollution control, Incorporation by
imposed by federal law,’’ any person action because SIP approvals are reference, Intergovernmental relations,
making a voluntary disclosure of exempted under Executive Order 12866; Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
information to a state agency regarding • does not impose an information recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
a violation of an environmental statute, collection burden under the provisions organic compounds.
regulation, permit, or administrative of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
order is granted immunity from U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
administrative or civil penalty. The • is certified as not having a Dated: February 26, 2018.
Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 significant economic impact on a Cosmo Servidio,
opinion states that the quoted language substantial number of small entities Regional Administrator, Region III.
renders this statute inapplicable to under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 [FR Doc. 2018–04812 Filed 3–9–18; 8:45 am]
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
enforcement of any federally authorized U.S.C. 601 et seq.); BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:41 Mar 09, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\12MRP1.SGM 12MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_10700/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-01 08:52:03
Document Modified: 2018-11-01 08:52:03
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2018. | |
| Contact | Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by email at [email protected]gov. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 10652 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR