83 FR 32794 - 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 136 (July 16, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 136 (July 16, 2018)
| Page Range | 32794-32796 | |
| FR Document | 2018-15049 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 32794-32796] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-15049] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337; FRL-9980-68--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: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 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: This final rule is effective on August 15, 2018. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section for additional availability information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at schulingkamp.joseph@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On May 9, 2018 (83 FR 21233), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Virginia's submittal to address the infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Virginia through the Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on May 16, 2017. II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis Virginia's May 16, 2017 SIP submittal includes a summary of annual emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX ) and sulfur dioxide (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 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. 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 concludes that 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 NPR and Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking action, which are available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337. EPA used the information in the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum\1\ 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. EPA concluded Virginia was not significantly contributing to nonattainment nor interfering with maintenance with 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by any other state. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Public Comments Two anonymous public comments were received on the NPR. The first comment generally discussed greenhouse gases and climate change and was determined to not be relevant nor specific to this rulemaking action. Thus, no response is provided for this comment. The second comment expressed that the commenter would not like to see particulate pollution from Virginia or any state degrade Allegheny County, Pennsylvania's air. As explained in the proposed rulemaking in detail, EPA determined that Virginia's emission sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment, nor interfere with maintenance, of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. EPA also concluded [[Page 32795]] that Allegheny County, Pennsylvania was likely to attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS without the need for further emission reductions. Thus, EPA does not expect emissions from Virginia to degrade Allegheny County, Pennsylvania's air quality. IV. Final Action EPA is approving the May 16, 2017 SIP revision addressing the interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to the Virginia SIP because the submittal adequately addresses section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 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 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. 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 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). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, 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). 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 [[Page 32796]] 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 September 14, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, addressing Virginia's interstate transport for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS, 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, Particulate matter. Dated: July 2, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 0 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart VV--Virginia 0 2. In Sec. 52.2420, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding a second entry for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Particulate Matter NAAQS after the first entry to read as follows: Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan. * * * * * (e)* * * (1)* * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable geographic submittal EPA approval date Additional explanation revision area date ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * Section 110(a)(2) Statewide.............. 05/16/17 7/16/2018, Docket 2017-0337. This Infrastructure Requirements [Insert Federal action addresses the for the 2012 Particulate Register infrastructure Matter NAAQS. citation]. element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * [FR Doc. 2018-15049 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![32794 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
any state or local fair housing law, or in (NAAQS). EPA is approving this measures and other federally
any licensing or regulatory proceeding revision in accordance with the enforceable source-specific measures,
conducted by a federal, state, or local requirements of the Clean Air Act pursuant to permitting requirements
government agency, to have committed (CAA). under the CAA, that apply to sources of
two or more discriminatory housing DATES: This final rule is effective on PM2.5 and its precursors within Virginia.
practices and the adjudications were August 15, 2018. Virginia concludes that the
made during the 7-year period ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
Commonwealth does not significantly
preceding the date of filing of the docket for this action under Docket ID contribute to, nor interfere with the
charge. Number EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0337. All maintenance of, another state for the
* * * * * documents in the docket are listed on 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
the http://www.regulations.gov website. A detailed summary of Virginia’s
PART 3282—MANUFACTURED HOME Although listed in the index, some submittal and EPA’s review and
PROCEDURAL AND ENFORCEMENT information is not publicly available, rationale for approval of this SIP
REGULATIONS e.g., confidential business information revision as meeting CAA section
(CBI) or other information whose 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5
■ 18. The authority citation for part NAAQS may be found in the NPR and
3282 continues to read as follows: disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as Technical Support Document (TSD) for
Authority: 28 U.S.C. 1 note; 28 U.S.C. 2461 copyrighted material, is not placed on this rulemaking action, which are
note; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5424. the internet and will be publicly available online at www.regulations.gov,
■ 19. Revise § 3282.10 to read as available only in hard copy form. Docket number EPA–R03–OAR–2017–
follows: Publicly available docket materials are 0337.
available through http:// EPA used the information in the 2016
§ 3282.10 Civil and criminal penalties. www.regulations.gov, or please contact PM2.5 Memorandum1 and additional
Failure to comply with these the person identified in the ‘‘For Further information for the evaluation and came
regulations may subject the party in Information Contact’’ section for to the same conclusion as Virginia. As
question to the civil and criminal additional availability information. discussed in greater detail in the TSD,
penalties provided for in section 611 of EPA identified the potential downwind
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
the Act, 42 U.S.C. 5410. The maximum nonattainment and maintenance
Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814–2021,
amount of penalties imposed under receptors identified in the 2016 PM2.5
or by email at schulingkamp.joseph@
section 611 of the Act shall be $2,852 Memorandum, and then evaluated them
epa.gov.
for each violation, up to a maximum of to determine if Virginia’s emissions
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: could potentially contribute to
$3,565,045 for any related series of
violations occurring within one year I. Background nonattainment and maintenance
from the date of the first violation. problems in 2021, the attainment year
On May 9, 2018 (83 FR 21233), EPA for moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Dated: July 8, 2018. published a notice of proposed EPA concluded Virginia was not
J. Paul Compton, Jr., rulemaking (NPR) for the significantly contributing to
General Counsel. Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR, nonattainment nor interfering with
[FR Doc. 2018–15116 Filed 7–13–18; 8:45 am] EPA proposed approval of Virginia’s maintenance with 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P submittal to address the infrastructure by any other state.
requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 2012 III. Public Comments
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PM2.5 NAAQS. The formal SIP revision Two anonymous public comments
AGENCY was submitted by Virginia through the were received on the NPR. The first
Department of Environmental Quality comment generally discussed
40 CFR Part 52 (VADEQ) on May 16, 2017. greenhouse gases and climate change
[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0337; FRL–9980– II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA and was determined to not be relevant
68—Region 3] Analysis nor specific to this rulemaking action.
Thus, no response is provided for this
Virginia’s May 16, 2017 SIP submittal comment. The second comment
Approval and Promulgation of Air
includes a summary of annual expressed that the commenter would
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) not like to see particulate pollution from
Interstate Transport Requirements for
and sulfur dioxide (SO2), both of which Virginia or any state degrade Allegheny
the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter
are precursors of PM2.5. The emissions County, Pennsylvania’s air. As
Standard
summary shows that emissions from explained in the proposed rulemaking
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Virginia sources have been steadily in detail, EPA determined that
Agency (EPA). decreasing for sources that could Virginia’s emission sources do not
ACTION: Final rule. potentially contribute, with respect to contribute significantly to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, to nonattainment, nor interfere with
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
Agency (EPA) is approving a state maintenance of, any other state. The in another state. EPA also concluded
implementation plan (SIP) revision submittal also included currently
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
submitted by the Commonwealth of available air quality monitoring data for 1 ‘‘Information on the Interstate Transport ‘‘Good
Virginia (the Commonwealth or PM2.5, and its precursors SO2 and NO2, Neighbor’’ Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate
Virginia). This revision pertains to the which Virginia alleged show that PM2.5 Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
infrastructure requirement for interstate levels continue to be below the 2012 under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),’’
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA
transport of pollution with respect to PM2.5 NAAQS in Virginia. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Additionally, Virginia described in its (March 17, 2016). A copy is included in the docket
national ambient air quality standards submittal several existing SIP-approved for this rulemaking action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jul 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_32930/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 32795
that Allegheny County, Pennsylvania programs in a manner that is no less impose additional requirements beyond
was likely to attain the 2012 PM2.5 stringent than their federal those imposed by state law. For that
NAAQS without the need for further counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion reason, this action:
emission reductions. Thus, EPA does concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
not expect emissions from Virginia to therefore, documents or other action’’ subject to review by the Office
degrade Allegheny County, information needed for civil or criminal of Management and Budget under
Pennsylvania’s air quality. enforcement under one of these Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
programs could not be privileged October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
IV. Final Action
because such documents and January 21, 2011);
EPA is approving the May 16, 2017 information are essential to pursuing • is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
SIP revision addressing the interstate enforcement in a manner required by FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
transport requirements for the 2012 federal law to maintain program action because SIP approvals are
PM2.5 NAAQS to the Virginia SIP delegation, authorization or approval.’’ exempted under Executive Order 12866.
because the submittal adequately Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code • does not impose an information
addresses section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the collection burden under the provisions
CAA. extent consistent with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
V. General Information Pertaining to imposed by federal law,’’ any person U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
SIP Submittals From the making a voluntary disclosure of • is certified as not having a
Commonwealth of Virginia information to a state agency regarding significant economic impact on a
a violation of an environmental statute, substantial number of small entities
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
regulation, permit, or administrative
that provides, subject to certain U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
order is granted immunity from
conditions, for an environmental • does not contain any unfunded
administrative or civil penalty. The
assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for mandate or significantly or uniquely
Attorney General’s January 12, 1998
voluntary compliance evaluations affect small governments, as described
opinion states that the quoted language
performed by a regulated entity. The in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
renders this statute inapplicable to
legislation further addresses the relative of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
enforcement of any federally authorized
burden of proof for parties either
programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be • does not have federalism
asserting the privilege or seeking implications as specified in Executive
disclosure of documents for which the afforded from administrative, civil, or
criminal penalties because granting Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 1999);
such immunity would not be consistent
legislation also provides, subject to
with federal law, which is one of the • is not an economically significant
certain conditions, for a penalty waiver regulatory action based on health or
for violations of environmental laws criteria for immunity.’’
Therefore, EPA has determined that safety risks subject to Executive Order
when a regulated entity discovers such 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity
violations pursuant to a voluntary
statutes will not preclude the • is not a significant regulatory action
compliance evaluation and voluntarily subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
discloses such violations to the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the federal 28355, May 22, 2001);
Commonwealth and takes prompt and
requirements. In any event, because • is not subject to requirements of
appropriate measures to remedy the Section 12(d) of the National
violations. Virginia’s Voluntary EPA has also determined that a state
audit privilege and immunity law can Technology Transfer and Advancement
Environmental Assessment Privilege Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides affect only state enforcement and cannot
have any impact on federal enforcement application of those requirements would
a privilege that protects from disclosure be inconsistent with the CAA; and
authorities, EPA may at any time invoke
documents and information about the • does not provide EPA with the
content of those documents that are the its authority under the CAA, including,
discretionary authority to address, as
product of a voluntary environmental for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211
appropriate, disproportionate human
assessment. The Privilege Law does not or 213, to enforce the requirements or
health or environmental effects, using
extend to documents or information prohibitions of the state plan,
practicable and legally permissible
that: (1) Are generated or developed independently of any state enforcement
methods, under Executive Order 12898
before the commencement of a effort. In addition, citizen enforcement
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
voluntary environmental assessment; (2) under section 304 of the CAA is
The SIP is not approved to apply on
are prepared independently of the likewise unaffected by this, or any, state
any Indian reservation land as defined
assessment process; (3) demonstrate a audit privilege or immunity law.
in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area
clear, imminent and substantial danger VI. Statutory and Executive Order where EPA or an Indian tribe has
to the public health or environment; or Reviews demonstrated that a tribe has
(4) are required by law. jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
On January 12, 1998, the A. General Requirements
country, the rule does not have tribal
Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Under the CAA, the Administrator is implications and will not impose
Attorney General provided a legal required to approve a SIP submission substantial direct costs on tribal
opinion that states that the Privilege that complies with the provisions of the governments or preempt tribal law as
law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes CAA and applicable federal regulations. specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
granting a privilege to documents and 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
information ‘‘required by law,’’ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
including documents and information EPA’s role is to approve state choices, B. Submission to Congress and the
‘‘required by federal law to maintain provided that they meet the criteria of Comptroller General
program delegation, authorization or the CAA. Accordingly, this action The Congressional Review Act, 5
approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce merely approves state law as meeting U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
federally authorized environmental federal requirements and does not Business Regulatory Enforcement
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jul 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_32930/page/2.svg)
![32796 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides circuit by September 14, 2018. Filing a PART 52—APPROVAL AND
that before a rule may take effect, the petition for reconsideration by the PROMULGATION OF
agency promulgating the rule must Administrator of this final rule does not IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
submit a rule report, which includes a affect the finality of this action for the
copy of the rule, to each House of the purposes of judicial review nor does it ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
Congress and to the Comptroller General extend the time within which a petition continues to read as follows:
of the United States. EPA will submit a for judicial review may be filed, and
report containing this action and other shall not postpone the effectiveness of Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
required information to the U.S. Senate, such rule or action.
This action, addressing Virginia’s Subpart VV—Virginia
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5
States prior to publication of the rule in NAAQS, may not be challenged later in ■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
the Federal Register. A major rule proceedings to enforce its requirements. (e)(1) is amended by adding a second
cannot take effect until 60 days after it (See section 307(b)(2).) entry for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
is published in the Federal Register. Requirements for the 2012 Particulate
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Matter NAAQS after the first entry to
Environmental protection, Air read as follows:
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
pollution control, Incorporation by
C. Petitions for Judicial Review reference, Particulate matter. § 52.2420 Identification of plan.
Dated: July 2, 2018. * * * * *
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this Cosmo Servidio, (e)* * *
action must be filed in the United States Regional Administrator, Region III.
(1)* * *
Court of Appeals for the appropriate 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
Name of Applicable State
non-regulatory SIP geographic submittal EPA approval date Additional explanation
revision area date
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Statewide .......... 05/16/17 7/16/2018, [Insert Federal Docket 2017–0337. This action addresses the
Requirements for the 2012 Register citation]. infrastructure element of CAA section
Particulate Matter NAAQS. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
* * * * * * *
* * * * * DATES: This final rule is effective on Maryland. In the NPR, EPA proposed
[FR Doc. 2018–15049 Filed 7–13–18; 8:45 am] August 15, 2018. approval of Maryland’s certification that
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ADDRESSES: EPA has established a Maryland’s emissions statement
docket for this action under Docket ID regulation meets the emissions
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0637. All statement requirement of section
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA for the 2008
documents in the docket are listed on
AGENCY ozone NAAQS. The formal SIP revision
the http://www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some (#17–02) was submitted by Maryland,
40 CFR Part 52 through the Maryland Department of the
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information Environment (MDE), on September 25,
[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0637; FRL–9980– 2017.
70—Region 3] (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Approval and Promulgation of Air Certain other material, such as Analysis
Quality Implementation Plans; MD; copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly In Maryland’s September 25, 2017 SIP
Emissions Statement Requirement for
available only in hard copy form. revision submittal, Maryland states that
the 2008 Ozone Standard
Publicly available docket materials are the existing COMAR 26.11.01.05–1
AGENCY: Environmental Protection available through http:// ‘‘Emissions Statements’’ rule satisfies
Agency (EPA). www.regulations.gov, or please contact CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008
ACTION: Final rule. the person identified in the FOR FURTHER ozone NAAQS. Under CAA section
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
182(a)(3)(B), states are required to have
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection additional availability information. an emission statements rule for
Agency (EPA) is approving a state nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone
implementation plan (SIP) revision FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin NAAQS. In addition, states in the ozone
submitted by the State of Maryland. Trouba, (215) 814–2023, or by email at transport region are required to have an
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
This SIP revision fulfills Maryland’s trouba.erin@epa.gov. emission statement rule statewide,
emissions statement requirement for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: including for attainment areas. See CAA
2008 ozone national ambient air quality sections 182(a)(3)(B), 182(f), and
I. Background
standard (NAAQS). EPA is approving 184(b)(2). EPA previously approved
these revisions in accordance with the On February 20, 2018 (83 FR 7124), Maryland’s emissions statement rule for
requirements of the Clean Air Act EPA published a notice of proposed the 1979 1-hour ozone standard,
(CAA). rulemaking (NPR) for the State of COMAR 26.11.01.05–1, into the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:16 Jul 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_32930/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-07-14 00:53:47
Document Modified: 2018-07-14 00:53:47
| 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 | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This final rule is effective on August 15, 2018. | |
| Contact | Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 32794 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference and Particulate Matter |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR