Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57463 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This good cause final 

action simply extends the date for the 

EPA to take action on a petition. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 

FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it 

does not establish an environmental 

health or safety standard. This good 

cause final action simply extends the 

date for the EPA to take action on a 

petition and does not have any impact 

on human health or the environment. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. The CRA allows the issuing 

agency to make a rule effective sooner 

than otherwise provided by the CRA if 

the agency makes a good cause finding 

that notice-and-comment rulemaking 

procedures are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has 

made a good cause finding for this rule 

as discussed in Section II.B of this 

document, including the basis for that 

finding. 

IV. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 110, 126 and 

307 of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 

7410, 7426 and 7607). 

V. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

judicial review of this final rule is 

available only by the filing of a petition 

for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the appropriate circuit by October 

24, 2016. Under section 307(b)(2) of the 

CAA, the requirements that are the 

subject of this final rule may not be 

challenged later in civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by us to enforce 

these requirements. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Air pollution control, 

Electric utilities, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone. 

Dated: August 15, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20140 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0075; FRL–9950–86– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; 

Kenosha County 2008 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area Reasonable 

Further Progress Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving an Early 

Progress Plan and motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) for volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides 

of nitrogen (NOX) for the Kenosha 

County, Wisconsin 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. Wisconsin 

submitted an Early Progress Plan for 

Kenosha County on January 16, 2015. 

This submittal was developed to 

establish MVEBs for the Kenosha 2008 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area. This 

approval of the Early Progress Plan for 

the Kenosha 2008 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area is based on EPA’s 

determination that Wisconsin has 

demonstrated that the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing these MVEBs, when 

considered with the emissions from all 

sources, shows progress toward 

attainment from the 2011 base year 

through a 2015 target year. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 24, 2016, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 22, 2016. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0075 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

persoon.carolyn@epa.gov. 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 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
57464 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

Michael Leslie, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6680, 

leslie.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What are the criteria for early progress 

plans? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the request? 

IV. What are the MVEBs for the Kenosha 

County 2008 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

EPA’s final rule designating 

nonattainment areas and associated 

classifications for the 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) was published in the Federal 

Register on May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088). 

A portion of Kenosha County was 

designated as marginal nonattainment. 

The Kenosha County 2008 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area had been previously 

designated nonattainment as part of the 

larger Milwaukee area for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard and had MVEBs for 

NOX and VOC established in the 

Wisconsin 1997 8-hour maintenance 

plan SIP. Consequently, the 

transportation partners in the Kenosha 

area have to use the 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment MVEBs for the 

Milwaukee area to demonstrate 

transportation conformity for the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard until new 

MVEBs are approved or found adequate, 

as required by the transportation 

conformity rule at 40 CFR 

93.109(c)(2)(i). Wisconsin submitted 

this plan to establish new MVEBs for 

Kenosha County developed with EPA’s 

MOVES2014 model. 

II. What are the criteria for early 

progress plans? 

EPA allows for the establishment of 

MVEBs for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard prior to a state submitting its 

first required 2008 8-hour ozone SIP 

that would include new MVEBs. 

Although voluntary, these ‘‘early’’ 

MVEBs must be established through a 

plan that meets all the requirements of 

a SIP submittal. This plan is known as 

the ‘‘Early Progress Plan.’’ Specifically 

and in reference to Early Progress Plans, 

the preamble of the July 1, 2004, final 

transportation conformity rule (see, 69 

FR 40019) reads as follows: 

The first 8-hour ozone SIP could be a 

control strategy SIP required by the Clean Air 

Act (e.g., rate-of-progress SIP or attainment 

demonstration) or a maintenance plan. 

However, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas 

‘are free to establish, through the SIP process, 

a motor vehicle emissions budget or budgets 

that addresses the new NAAQS in advance 

of a complete SIP attainment demonstration. 

That is, a state could submit a motor vehicle 

emission budget that does not demonstrate 

attainment but is consistent with projections 

and commitments to control measures and 

achieves some progress toward attainment’ 

(August 15, 1997, 62 FR 43799). A SIP 

submitted earlier than otherwise required can 

demonstrate a significant level of emissions 

reductions from current level of emissions, 

instead of a specific percentage required by 

the Clean Air Act for moderate and above 

ozone areas. 

The Early Progress Plan must 

demonstrate that the SIP revision 

containing the MVEBs, when 

considered with emissions from all 

sources, and when projected from the 

base year to a future year, shows 

progress toward attainment. EPA has 

previously indicated that a 5 percent to 

10 percent reduction in emissions from 

all sources could represent a significant 

level of emissions reductions from 

current levels (69 FR 40019). This 

allowance is provided so that areas have 

an opportunity to use the budget test to 

demonstrate conformity as opposed to 

the interim conformity tests (i.e., 2002 

baseline test and/or action versus 

baseline test). The budget test with an 

adequate or approved SIP budget is 

generally more protective of air quality 

and provides a more relevant basis for 

conformity determinations than the 

interim emissions test. (69 FR 40026). 

It should also be noted that the Early 

Progress Plan is not a required plan and 

does not substitute for required 

submissions such as an attainment 

demonstration or rate-of-progress plan, 

if such plans become required for the 

Kenosha 8-hour ozone area. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

request? 

On January 16, 2015, the State 

submitted to EPA an Early Progress Plan 

for the sole purpose of establishing 

MVEBs for the Kenosha 2008 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. The 

submittal utilizes a base year of 2011, 

and a projected year 2015 to establish 

NOX and VOC MVEBs. The planning 

assumptions used to develop the 

MVEBs were discussed and agreed to by 

the Kenosha interagency consultation 

group, which consists of the 

transportation and air quality partners 

in the Kenosha 2008 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. Tables 1 and 2 

below show the differences by source 

categories between the 2011 base year 

and 2015 forecast year. The NOX and 

VOC emissions in tons per day (tpd) 

within the Kenosha nonattainment area 

are expected to decrease significantly, 

6.9 percent and 8.9 percent, 

respectively, between 2011 and 2015. 

These emission trends demonstrate that 

progress will be made towards 

attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—KENOSHA COUNTY 2008 

OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA NOX

EMISSIONS

[Kenosha County NOX Emissions] 

Source 

2011 

NOX

(tpd) 

2015 

NOX

(tpd) 

Point .......................... 8.80 6.15 

Area .......................... 1.09 1.33 

On-road Mobile ......... 5.17 4.40 

Non-Road Mobile ...... 2.14 1.69 

Total ................... 17.17 15.98 

Total Percent Reduction ........................ 6.9% 

TABLE 2—KENOSHA COUNTY 2008 

OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA VOC 

EMISSIONS

[Kenosha County VOC Emissions] 

VOC Source 

2011 

VOC 

(tpd) 

2015 

VOC 

(tpd) 

Point .......................... 0.70 2.63 

Area .......................... 4.78 4.72 

On-road Mobile ......... 2.38 1.99 

Non-Road Mobile ...... 1.46 1.08 

Total ................... 9.32 8.49 

Total Percent Reduction ........................ 8.9% 

EPA found these MVEBs adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes in 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57465 

an earlier action (80 FR 17428, April 1, 

2015). As of April 16, 2015, the effective 

date of EPA’s adequacy finding for these 

MVEBs, conformity determinations in 

Kenosha County must meet the budget 

test using these 2008 8-hour ozone 

MVEBs, instead of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone MVEBs. Please note that this 

adequacy finding does not relate to the 

merits of the SIP submittal, nor does it 

indicate whether the submittal meets 

the requirements for approval. This EPA 

rulemaking action takes formal action 

on the Early Progress Plan SIP revision. 

IV. What are the MVEBs for the 

Kenosha 2008 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area? 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

approving the 2015 regional MVEBs for 

NOX and VOC for the Kenosha County 

2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. 

EPA has determined that the MVEBs 

contained in the Early Progress Plan SIP 

revision are consistent with emission 

reductions from all sources within the 

nonattainment area and are showing 

progress toward attainment. 

The 2015 MVEBs in tpd for VOCs and 

NOX for the Kenosha County, Wisconsin 

nonattainment area are as follows: 

Area 

2015 

NOX

(tpd) 

2015 

VOCs 

(tpd) 

Kenosha County ....... 4.397 1.944 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving Kenosha’s Early 

Progress Plan, including the 2015 

MVEBs for NOX and VOC. The Early 

Progress Plan demonstrates progress 

towards attainment of the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for the Kenosha 

nonattainment area. The NOX and VOC 

emissions reductions from 2011 to 2015 

for Kenosha County nonattainment 

areas were 6.9 percent and 8.9 percent, 

respectively. These emission reductions 

are based on control measures that are 

permanent and enforceable and will 

continue to improve air quality in the 

region, thus demonstrating that the 

MVEBs are showing progress toward 

attainment. 

EPA issues this direct final 

rulemaking in response to Wisconsin’s 

January 16, 2015 submittal of an Early 

Progress Plan. This revision is a 

voluntary SIP revision for the sole 

purpose of establishing MVEBs for the 

purpose of implementing transportation 

conformity in the Kenosha County 2008 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

State plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective October 24, 2016 without 

further notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by September 

22, 2016. If we receive such comments, 

we will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

October 24, 2016. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act 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 Clean Air Act. 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); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

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). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 24, 2016. 

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. Parties with 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
57466 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Volatile organic compounds, 

Oxides of nitrogen. 

Dated: August 5, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. Section 52.2585 is amended by 

adding paragraph (ee) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2585 Control strategy; ozone. 

* * * * * 

(ee) Approval—On January 16, 2015, 

the State of Wisconsin submitted a 

revision to its State Implementation 

Plan for Kenosha County, Wisconsin. 

The submittal established new Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) for 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and 

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) for the year 

2015. The MVEBs for Kenosha County 

nonattainment area are now: 1.994 tons 

per day of VOC emissions and 4.397 

tons per day of NOX emissions for the 

year 2015. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20002 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0418; FRL–9950–94– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Minor New Source Review—Nonroad 

Engines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia state 

implementation plan (SIP). The 

revisions amend the definition of 

‘‘nonroad engine’’ under Virginia’s 

minor New Source Review (NSR) 

requirements to align with Federal 

requirements. EPA is approving these 

revisions to the Virginia SIP in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

24, 2016 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by September 22, 2016. If EPA receives 

such comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2016–0418 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

campbell.dave@epa.gov. 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: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On June 17, 2014, the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ), on behalf of the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, submitted a 

formal revision to its SIP. The SIP 

revision consists of amendments to the 

definition of ‘‘nonroad engine’’ under 

VADEQ’s minor NSR regulations. 

Virginia has a SIP approved minor NSR 

program located in the Virginia 

Administrative Code (VAC) at 9VAC 5– 

80 which regulates certain 

modifications and construction of 

stationary sources within areas covered 

by its SIP as necessary to assure the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) are achieved. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

VADEQ’s June 17, 2014 SIP submittal 

includes revisions to the definition of 

‘‘nonroad engine’’ under the VAC, 

specifically 9VAC5–80–1110. The 

definition of ‘‘nonroad engine’’ was 

expanded to include portable and 

temporary engines. The revision to 

9VAC5–80–1110 makes VADEQ’s 

definition more consistent with the 

Federal definition at 40 CFR 89.2. 

According to VADEQ, Federal design 

standards for internal combustion 

engines and Federal fuel standards for 

engines are already more restrictive than 

permit requirements for portable and 

temporary engines in Virginia’s minor 

NSR program. Virginia’s amended 

definition adopts the Federal definition 

of ‘‘nonroad engine,’’ grouping portable 

engines and temporary engines together 

with other non-mobile engines. The 

revised definition will streamline 

Virginia’s minor NSR program by no 

longer requiring VADEQ to issue minor 

NSR permits without meaningful 

additional emissions control 

requirements on those engines. Virginia 

asserted the amended definition does 

not increase emissions or otherwise 

affect air quality. 

EPA finds these revisions are 

appropriate and meet the Federal 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 and 

51.161, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

a minor NSR program. Additionally, the 

revision to 9VAC5–80–1110(and in 

particular the deletions in the revised 

regulation) are in accordance with 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES