83 FR 21233 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 90 (May 9, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 90 (May 9, 2018)
| Page Range | 21233-21235 | |
| FR Document | 2018-09887 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 21233-21235] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-09887] [[Page 21233]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337; FRL-9977-88--Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter 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 submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia (the Commonwealth or Virginia). This revision pertains to the infrastructure requirement for interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 8, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03- OAR-2017-0337 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 16, 2015, Virginia, through the Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), submitted a SIP revision to address the elements of CAA section 110(a)(2) with the exception of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA approved that SIP revision on June 16, 2016. See 81 FR 39210. EPA's previous approval on that June 16, 2015 submittal is not at issue in this rulemaking action and EPA will not be taking comment on the previous approval. On May 16, 2017, Virginia, through VADEQ, submitted a SIP revision addressing the infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. I. Background A. General Particle pollution is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets in the air. When inhaled, these particles can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle pollution is linked to a variety of significant health problems. Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment in the nation's cities and national parks. PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the atmosphere, or it can form from chemical reactions of precursor gases including sulfur dioxide (SO2 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ), certain volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia. On January 15, 2013, EPA revised the level of the health based (primary) annual PM2.5 standard to 12 micrograms per meter cubed ([micro]g/m\3\). See 78 FR 3086. B. EPA's Infrastructure Requirements Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit a SIP revision to address the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS--such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances of each NAAQS and what is in each state's existing SIP. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP revision for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. Specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. C. Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state's SIP to address any emissions activity in one state that contributes significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. The EPA sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or jointly as the ``good neighbor'' provision of the CAA. On March 17, 2016, EPA issued a memorandum providing information on the development and review of SIPs that address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (2016 PM2.5 Memorandum).\1\ Further information can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking action, which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ ``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor'' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (March 17, 2016). A copy is included in the docket for this rulemaking action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Summary of SIP Revisions and EPA Analysis Virginia's May 16, 2017 SIP submittal includes a summary of annual emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX ) and SO2 , both of which are precursors of PM2.5 . The emissions summary shows that emissions from Virginia sources have been steadily decreasing for sources that could potentially contribute with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance of, any other state. The submittal also included currently [[Page 21234]] available air quality monitoring data for PM2.5 , and its precursors SO2 and NO2 , which Virginia alleged show that PM2.5 levels continue to be below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Virginia. Virginia also discussed EPA's 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum and the fact that EPA's analysis showed that only one monitor in the eastern United States had projected PM2.5 data above the 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ NAAQS value (Allegheny County, PA). Virginia also discussed the direction of prevailing winds throughout Virginia and how, apart from short-term weather variations, Virginia's emissions would have a negligible influence on Allegheny County's attainment status. Virginia also points to EPA's response to comments on the 2012 PM2.5 Designations, in which EPA discusses the factors contributing to the Allegheny County area's nonattainment designation.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ ``Response to Significant Comments on the State and Tribal Designation Recommendations for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)'' December 17, 2014. See Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918-0337, page 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additionally, Virginia described in its submittal several existing SIP-approved measures and other federally enforceable source-specific measures, pursuant to permitting requirements under the CAA, that apply to sources of PM2.5 and its precursors within Virginia. Virginia alleges with these measures, emissions reductions, ambient monitored PM2.5 data, and meteorological data, the Commonwealth does not significantly contribute to, nor interfere with the maintenance of, another state for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. A detailed summary of Virginia's submittal and EPA's review and rationale for approval of this SIP revision as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS may be found in the TSD for this rulemaking action, which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337. EPA used the information in the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum and additional information for the evaluation and came to the same conclusion as Virginia. As discussed in greater detail in the TSD, EPA identified the potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum, and then evaluated them to determine if Virginia's emissions could potentially contribute to nonattainment and maintenance problems in 2021, the attainment year for moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Specifically, the analysis identified the following areas as potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors: (i) 17 potential receptors in California; (ii) one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho; (iii) one potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (iv) data gaps exist for the monitors in four counties in Florida; and (v) data gaps exist for all monitors in Illinois. For the 17 receptors in California and one potential receptor in Idaho, based on EPA's evaluation of distance and wind direction, EPA proposes to conclude that Virginia's emissions do not significantly impact those receptors. For the potential receptor in Allegheny County, EPA expects the air quality affecting that monitor to improve to the point where the monitor will not be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor by 2021 and is therefore unlikely to be a receptor for purposes of interstate transport. For the four counties in Florida and the monitors in Illinois with data gaps, EPA initially treats those receptors as potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors. For the Florida receptors, it is unlikely that they will be nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021 and in any event, modeling from the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) indicates that Virginia's emissions do not contribute to them. For the monitors in Illinois, the most recent air quality data (from 2015 and 2016) indicates that all monitors are likely attaining the PM2.5 NAAQs and are therefore unlikely to be nonattainment or maintenance concerns in 2021. Therefore, EPA proposes to conclude that Virginia emissions will not contribute to those monitors. For these reasons, EPA is proposing to find that Virginia's existing SIP provisions as identified in the May 16, 2017 SIP submittal are adequate to prevent its emission sources from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in another state with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the May 16, 2017 Virginia SIP revision addressing the interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS because the submittal adequately addresses section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) ``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1- 1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent, and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law. On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents and information ``required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec. 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.'' Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that ``[t]o the 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 [[Page 21235]] 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 action, proposing approval of Virginia's interstate transport submittal for the 2012 PM 2.5 standard, 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, Particulate matter. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 1, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 2018-09887 Filed 5-8-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 21233
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: available at the time the state develops
AGENCY Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814–2021, and submits the SIP revision for a new
or by email at schulingkamp.joseph@ or revised NAAQS affect the content of
40 CFR Part 52 epa.gov. the submission. The content of such SIP
[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0337; FRL–9977– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June submission may also vary depending
88—Region 3] 16, 2015, Virginia, through the upon what provisions the state’s
Department of Environmental Quality existing SIP already contains.
Approval and Promulgation of Air (VADEQ), submitted a SIP revision to Specifically, section 110(a)(1)
Quality Implementation Plans;Virginia; address the elements of CAA section provides the procedural and timing
Interstate Transport Requirements for 110(a)(2) with the exception of section requirements for SIP submissions.
the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA approved that SIP Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
Standard revision on June 16, 2016. See 81 FR that states must meet for infrastructure
39210. EPA’s previous approval on that SIP requirements related to a newly
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
June 16, 2015 submittal is not at issue established or revised NAAQS such as
Agency (EPA).
in this rulemaking action and EPA will requirements for monitoring, basic
ACTION: Proposed rule.
not be taking comment on the previous program requirements, and legal
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection approval. On May 16, 2017, Virginia, authority that are designed to assure
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a through VADEQ, submitted a SIP attainment and maintenance of the
state implementation plan (SIP) revision revision addressing the infrastructure NAAQS.
submitted by the Commonwealth of requirements under section C. Interstate Pollution Transport
Virginia (the Commonwealth or 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 2012 Requirements
Virginia). This revision pertains to the PM2.5 NAAQS.
infrastructure requirement for interstate Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA
I. Background requires a state’s SIP to address any
transport of pollution with respect to
the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) A. General emissions activity in one state that
national ambient air quality standards contributes significantly to
Particle pollution is a complex nonattainment, or interferes with
(NAAQS). EPA is approving this mixture of extremely small particles and
revision in accordance with the maintenance, of the NAAQS in any
liquid droplets in the air. When inhaled, downwind state. The EPA sometimes
requirements of the Clean Air Act these particles can reach the deepest
(CAA). refers to these requirements as prong 1
regions of the lungs. Exposure to (significant contribution to
DATES: Written comments must be particle pollution is linked to a variety nonattainment) and prong 2
received on or before June 8, 2018. of significant health problems. Particle (interference with maintenance), or
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, pollution also is the main cause of jointly as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– visibility impairment in the nation’s of the CAA. On March 17, 2016, EPA
OAR–2017–0337 at https:// cities and national parks. PM2.5 can be issued a memorandum providing
www.regulations.gov, or via email to emitted directly into the atmosphere, or information on the development and
spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For it can form from chemical reactions of review of SIPs that address CAA section
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, precursor gases including sulfur dioxide 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012 PM2.5
follow the online instructions for (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), certain NAAQS (2016 PM2.5 Memorandum).1
submitting comments. Once submitted, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and Further information can be found in the
comments cannot be edited or removed ammonia. On January 15, 2013, EPA Technical Support Document (TSD) for
from Regulations.gov. For either manner revised the level of the health based this rulemaking action, which is
of submission, EPA may publish any (primary) annual PM2.5 standard to 12 available online at www.regulations.gov,
comment received to its public docket. micrograms per meter cubed (mg/m3). Docket number EPA–R03–OAR–2017–
Do not submit electronically any See 78 FR 3086. 0337.
information you consider to be
B. EPA’s Infrastructure Requirements II. Summary of SIP Revisions and EPA
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the Analysis
restricted by statute. Multimedia CAA, states are required to submit a SIP Virginia’s May 16, 2017 SIP submittal
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be revision to address the applicable includes a summary of annual
accompanied by a written comment. requirements of section 110(a)(2) within emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
The written comment is considered the three years after promulgation of a new and SO2, both of which are precursors
official comment and should include or revised NAAQS or within such of PM2.5. The emissions summary shows
discussion of all points you wish to shorter period as EPA may prescribe. that emissions from Virginia sources
make. EPA will generally not consider Section 110(a)(2) requires states to have been steadily decreasing for
comments or comment contents located address basic SIP elements to assure sources that could potentially contribute
outside of the primary submission (i.e. attainment and maintenance of the with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing NAAQS—such as requirements for
to nonattainment in, or interfere with
system). For additional submission monitoring, basic program
maintenance of, any other state. The
methods, please contact the person requirements, and legal authority.
submittal also included currently
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
identified in the FOR FURTHER Section 110(a) imposes the obligation
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the upon states to make a SIP submission to 1 ‘‘Information on the Interstate Transport ‘‘Good
full EPA public comment policy, EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but Neighbor’’ Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate
information about CBI or multimedia the contents of that submission may Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
submissions, and general guidance on vary depending upon the facts and under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),’’
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA
making effective comments, please visit circumstances of each NAAQS and what Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ is in each state’s existing SIP. In (March 17, 2016). A copy is included in the docket
commenting-epa-dockets. particular, the data and analytical tools for this rulemaking action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 May 08, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM 09MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_21323/page/1.svg)
![21234 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
available air quality monitoring data for receptors: (i) 17 potential receptors in voluntary compliance evaluations
PM2.5, and its precursors SO2 and NO2, California; (ii) one potential receptor in performed by a regulated entity. The
which Virginia alleged show that PM2.5 Shoshone County, Idaho; (iii) one legislation further addresses the relative
levels continue to be below the 2012 potential receptor in Allegheny County, burden of proof for parties either
PM2.5 NAAQS in Virginia. Pennsylvania; (iv) data gaps exist for the asserting the privilege or seeking
Virginia also discussed EPA’s 2016 monitors in four counties in Florida; disclosure of documents for which the
PM2.5 Memorandum and the fact that and (v) data gaps exist for all monitors privilege is claimed. Virginia’s
EPA’s analysis showed that only one in Illinois. For the 17 receptors in legislation also provides, subject to
monitor in the eastern United States had California and one potential receptor in certain conditions, for a penalty waiver
projected PM2.5 data above the 12.0 mg/ Idaho, based on EPA’s evaluation of for violations of environmental laws
m3 NAAQS value (Allegheny County, distance and wind direction, EPA when a regulated entity discovers such
PA). Virginia also discussed the proposes to conclude that Virginia’s violations pursuant to a voluntary
direction of prevailing winds emissions do not significantly impact compliance evaluation and voluntarily
throughout Virginia and how, apart those receptors. For the potential discloses such violations to the
from short-term weather variations, receptor in Allegheny County, EPA Commonwealth and takes prompt and
Virginia’s emissions would have a expects the air quality affecting that appropriate measures to remedy the
negligible influence on Allegheny monitor to improve to the point where violations. Virginia’s Voluntary
County’s attainment status. Virginia also the monitor will not be a nonattainment Environmental Assessment Privilege
points to EPA’s response to comments or maintenance receptor by 2021 and is Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides
on the 2012 PM2.5 Designations, in therefore unlikely to be a receptor for a privilege that protects from disclosure
which EPA discusses the factors purposes of interstate transport. For the documents and information about the
contributing to the Allegheny County four counties in Florida and the content of those documents that are the
area’s nonattainment designation.2 monitors in Illinois with data gaps, EPA product of a voluntary environmental
Additionally, Virginia described in its initially treats those receptors as assessment. The Privilege Law does not
submittal several existing SIP-approved potential nonattainment or maintenance extend to documents or information
measures and other federally receptors. For the Florida receptors, it is that: (1) Are generated or developed
enforceable source-specific measures, unlikely that they will be nonattainment before the commencement of a
pursuant to permitting requirements or maintenance receptors in 2021 and in voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
under the CAA, that apply to sources of any event, modeling from the Cross- are prepared independently of the
PM2.5 and its precursors within Virginia. State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
Virginia alleges with these measures, indicates that Virginia’s emissions do clear, imminent, and substantial danger
emissions reductions, ambient not contribute to them. For the monitors to the public health or environment; or
monitored PM2.5 data, and in Illinois, the most recent air quality (4) are required by law.
meteorological data, the Commonwealth data (from 2015 and 2016) indicates that On January 12, 1998, the
does not significantly contribute to, nor all monitors are likely attaining the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
interfere with the maintenance of, PM2.5 NAAQs and are therefore unlikely Attorney General provided a legal
another state for the 2012 PM2.5 to be nonattainment or maintenance opinion that states that the Privilege
NAAQS. A detailed summary of concerns in 2021. Therefore, EPA law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes
Virginia’s submittal and EPA’s review proposes to conclude that Virginia granting a privilege to documents and
and rationale for approval of this SIP emissions will not contribute to those information ‘‘required by law,’’
revision as meeting CAA section monitors. For these reasons, EPA is including documents and information
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5 proposing to find that Virginia’s existing ‘‘required by federal law to maintain
NAAQS may be found in the TSD for SIP provisions as identified in the May program delegation, authorization or
this rulemaking action, which is 16, 2017 SIP submittal are adequate to approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce
available online at www.regulations.gov, prevent its emission sources from federally authorized environmental
Docket number EPA–R03–OAR–2017– significantly contributing to programs in a manner that is no less
0337. nonattainment or interfering with stringent than their federal
EPA used the information in the 2016 maintenance in another state with counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion
PM2.5 Memorandum and additional respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198,
information for the evaluation and came therefore, documents or other
to the same conclusion as Virginia. As III. Proposed Action information needed for civil or criminal
discussed in greater detail in the TSD, EPA is proposing to approve the May enforcement under one of these
EPA identified the potential downwind 16, 2017 Virginia SIP revision programs could not be privileged
nonattainment and maintenance addressing the interstate transport because such documents and
receptors identified in the 2016 PM2.5 requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS information are essential to pursuing
Memorandum, and then evaluated them because the submittal adequately enforcement in a manner required by
to determine if Virginia’s emissions addresses section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the federal law to maintain program
could potentially contribute to CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments delegation, authorization or approval.’’
nonattainment and maintenance on the issues discussed in this Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code
problems in 2021, the attainment year document. These comments will be Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the
for moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas. considered before taking final action. extent consistent with requirements
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Specifically, the analysis identified the imposed by federal law,’’ any person
following areas as potential IV. General Information Pertaining to making a voluntary disclosure of
nonattainment and maintenance SIP Submittals From the information to a state agency regarding
Commonwealth of Virginia a violation of an environmental statute,
2 ‘‘Response to Significant Comments on the State
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation regulation, permit, or administrative
and Tribal Designation Recommendations for the that provides, subject to certain order is granted immunity from
2012 Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS)’’ December 17, 2014. See Docket conditions, for an environmental administrative or civil penalty. The
Number: EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0918–0337, page 10. assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for Attorney General’s January 12, 1998
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 May 08, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM 09MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_21323/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 21235
opinion states that the quoted language in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
renders this statute inapplicable to of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
enforcement of any federally authorized • does not have federalism revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality
programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be implications as specified in Executive Management District (YSAQMD or
afforded from administrative, civil, or Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, ‘‘District’’) portion of the California
criminal penalties because granting 1999); State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
such immunity would not be consistent • is not an economically significant revision concerns the District’s negative
with federal law, which is one of the regulatory action based on health or declarations for several volatile organic
criteria for immunity.’’ safety risks subject to Executive Order compound (VOC) source categories
Therefore, EPA has determined that 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); included in its Reasonably Available
Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity • is not a significant regulatory action Control Technology (RACT) State
statutes will not preclude the subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Implementation Plan Analysis. We are
Commonwealth from enforcing its 28355, May 22, 2001); proposing to approve these negative
program consistent with the federal • is not subject to requirements of declarations under the Clean Air Act
requirements. In any event, because Section 12(d) of the National (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’). We are taking
EPA has also determined that a state Technology Transfer and Advancement comments on this proposal and plan to
audit privilege and immunity law can Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because follow with a final action.
affect only state enforcement and cannot application of those requirements would DATES: Any comments must arrive by
have any impact on federal enforcement be inconsistent with the CAA; and June 8, 2018.
authorities, EPA may at any time invoke • does not provide EPA with the ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
its authority under the CAA, including, discretionary authority to address, as identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 appropriate, disproportionate human OAR–2018–0160 at https://
or 213, to enforce the requirements or health or environmental effects, using www.regulations.gov/, or via email to
prohibitions of the state plan, practicable and legally permissible Stanley Tong, at tong.stanley@epa.gov.
independently of any state enforcement methods, under Executive Order 12898 For comments submitted at
effort. In addition, citizen enforcement (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Regulations.gov, follow the online
under section 304 of the CAA is This action, proposing approval of instructions for submitting comments.
likewise unaffected by this, or any, state Virginia’s interstate transport submittal Once submitted, comments cannot be
audit privilege or immunity law. for the 2012 PM2.5 standard, is not removed or edited from Regulations.gov.
approved to apply on any Indian For either manner of submission, the
V. Statutory and Executive Order EPA may publish any comment received
reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C.
Reviews to its public docket. Do not submit
1151 or in any other area where EPA or
Under the CAA, the Administrator is an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a electronically any information you
required to approve a SIP submission tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of consider to be Confidential Business
that complies with the provisions of the Indian country, the rule does not have Information (CBI) or other information
CAA and applicable federal regulations. tribal implications and will not impose whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). substantial direct costs on tribal Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, governments or preempt tribal law as etc.) must be accompanied by a written
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 comment. The written comment is
provided that they meet the criteria of FR 67249, November 9, 2000). considered the official comment and
the CAA. Accordingly, this action should include discussion of all points
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 you wish to make. The EPA will
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not Environmental protection, Air generally not consider comments or
impose additional requirements beyond pollution control, Incorporation by comment contents located outside of the
those imposed by state law. For that reference, Particulate matter. primary submission (i.e., on the web,
reason, this proposed action: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. cloud, or other file sharing system). For
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory additional submission methods, please
Dated: May 1, 2018. contact the person identified in the FOR
action’’ subject to review by the Office
Cosmo Servidio, FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Regional Administrator, Region III. For the full EPA public comment policy,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, [FR Doc. 2018–09887 Filed 5–8–18; 8:45 am] information about CBI or multimedia
January 21, 2011); BILLING CODE 6560–50–P submissions, and general guidance on
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 making effective comments, please visit
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
action because SIP approvals are ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION commenting-epa-dockets.
exempted under Executive Order 12866. AGENCY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
• does not impose an information Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415)
40 CFR Part 52 947–4122, tong.stanley@epa.gov.
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 [EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0160; FRL–9977– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 85—Region 9] Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
• is certified as not having a and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
significant economic impact on a Air Plan Approval; California; Yolo-
Table of Contents
substantial number of small entities Solano Air Quality Management
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 District; Negative Declarations I. The State’s Submittal
A. What document did the State submit?
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); AGENCY: Environmental Protection B. Are there other versions of the RACT
• does not contain any unfunded Agency (EPA). SIP—negative declarations?
mandate or significantly or uniquely C. What is the purpose of the submitted
ACTION: Proposed rule.
affect small governments, as described negative declarations?
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 May 08, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM 09MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_21323/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-05-09 03:17:54
Document Modified: 2018-05-09 03:17:54
| 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 June 8, 2018. | |
| Contact | Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 21233 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference and Particulate Matter |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR